Soru

Zorluk: ZorSufficient Assumption

Match each incomplete argument on the left with the sufficient assumption on the right that logically guarantees its conclusion. Which sufficient assumption properly completes each argument?

  • Argument 1:
    Premise: Any environmental mitigation policy that relies on voluntary corporate compliance inevitably fails to produce verifiable reductions in particulate emissions.
    Conclusion: Thus, the municipal clean air initiative will fail to qualify for federal regulatory subsidies.
    The municipal clean air initiative relies on voluntary corporate compliance, and any environmental mitigation policy that fails to produce verifiable particulate emission reductions fails to qualify for federal regulatory subsidies.
  • Argument 2:
    Premise: Any biomedical clinical trial that utilizes synthetic control groups rather than randomized human controls cannot establish statistical equivalence across diverse subpopulations.
    Conclusion: Thus, the experimental immunotherapy protocol should not receive expedited regulatory approval.
    The experimental immunotherapy protocol utilizes synthetic control groups, and any biomedical clinical trial that cannot establish statistical equivalence across diverse subpopulations should not receive expedited regulatory approval.
  • Argument 3:
    Premise: Any algorithmic judicial sentencing tool that optimizes solely for recidivism reduction disproportionately weighs prior arrest records over severity of conviction.
    Conclusion: Thus, the state correctional board's automated sentencing model systematically violates statutory parity mandates.
    The state correctional board's automated sentencing model optimizes solely for recidivism reduction, and any algorithmic judicial sentencing tool that disproportionately weighs prior arrest records over severity of conviction systematically violates statutory parity mandates.

Cevap

Argument 1 matches with the assumption linking voluntary compliance and lack of verifiable emission reductions to federal subsidy disqualification; Argument 2 matches with the assumption linking synthetic control groups and lack of statistical subpopulation equivalence to expedited approval denial; Argument 3 matches with the assumption linking single-metric recidivism optimization and prior arrest weighting to violations of statutory parity mandates.
Each correct pairing provides the precise missing subject instantiation and universal conditional rule required to close the inferential gap between the argument's stated premise and its definitive conclusion. When the matched statement is added to the premise set, the conclusion follows with absolute deductive certainty.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the premise, conclusion, and inferential gap in each argument
Each argument contains an ungrounded subject instantiation and a missing conditional linkage connecting the intermediate predicate to the final conclusion predicate.
Sufficient assumptions must bridge all new or disconnected conceptual terms from the premises directly into the conclusion.
2
Construct the required deductive bridge formula for each argument
For Argument 1: [Initiative → Voluntary Compliance] and [No Verifiable Reductions → No Subsidies]. For Argument 2: [Protocol → Synthetic Controls] and [No Statistical Equivalence → No Expedited Approval]. For Argument 3: [Model → Recidivism Optimization] and [Disproportionate Arrest Weighting → Parity Violation].
Adding these premises creates unbroken chains of formal conditionals that force the truth of each respective conclusion.
3
Align each argument with its corresponding full-coverage assumption
Each argument maps directly and uniquely to the statement providing both subject instantiation and the required universal conditional link.
No other pairing provides the necessary conceptual or formal alignment to render the conclusion 100% deductively valid.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption in Formal Deductive Chains
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Bu soruyu puanla