Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaEquivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)

Manager: Our employee handbook strictly dictates that all staff members must exhibit professionalism in the workplace. The handbook defines this as consistently arriving on time, adhering to the company dress code, and communicating respectfully with colleagues. Our lead developer's recent software upgrade was executed with an incredibly high degree of professionalism, utilizing the most advanced, robust programming techniques in the industry. Therefore, it is clear that the lead developer has fully fulfilled the handbook's mandate regarding professionalism.

The manager's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument does which of the following?

  1. A
    confuses a condition that is sufficient to demonstrate adherence to a policy with a condition that is logically necessary to do so
  2. B
    infers, from the fact that one specific aspect of an employee's work is exemplary, that the employee's overall conduct satisfies a general requirement
  3. reaches a conclusion that depends on illicitly shifting the meaning of a key term between a policy definition and an evaluation of work productCevap
  4. D
    mistakenly equates the main conclusion regarding policy compliance with a subsidiary premise about technical expertise
  5. E
    takes for granted that advanced programming techniques are the only valid measure of high-quality software development

Cevap

The correct option is the one stating that the argument reaches a conclusion that depends on illicitly shifting the meaning of a key term between a policy definition and an evaluation of work product.
The argument's reasoning is fundamentally flawed because it relies on equivocation. In the first half of the argument, 'professionalism' is explicitly defined as a set of workplace behaviors: arriving on time, following the dress code, and communicating respectfully. However, when evaluating the lead developer, the manager uses 'professionalism' to describe technical competence and the use of robust programming techniques. The conclusion that the developer fulfilled the behavioral mandate is entirely unsupported because it relies on the technical definition of the word rather than the required behavioral definition.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that the lead developer has fully fulfilled the handbook's mandate regarding professionalism.
This sets the target for what the premises must logically prove.
2
Analyze the premises provided to support the conclusion.
Premise 1: Professionalism is defined behaviorally (arriving on time, dress code, respect). Premise 2: The developer's software upgrade was executed with 'professionalism' (meaning technical robustness and advanced techniques).
Deconstructing the premises reveals the underlying logic and definitions used by the author.
3
Compare the premise definitions to find the logical gap or flaw.
The term 'professionalism' means two completely different things. In the rule, it is about behavioral compliance. In the developer's evaluation, it is about technical quality.
Recognizing that the exact same word is being used in two distinct senses identifies the classic Equivocation flaw.
4
Match the identified flaw with the correct answer choice.
Select the option that describes shifting the meaning of a key term.
This directly describes the equivocation observed in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)

Bu konudan daha fazla soru