Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaFlaw in the Reasoning

Botanist: In order for heirloom tomato cultivars to develop high concentrations of flavor-enhancing aromatic esters, the soil in which they are grown must contain a specific balance of mycorrhizal fungi. Recent field assays confirm that the soil throughout our experimental greenhouse plots contains precisely this requisite balance of mycorrhizal fungi. Thus, we can conclude that the heirloom tomatoes grown in these greenhouse plots will inevitably yield high concentrations of flavor-enhancing aromatic esters.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the botanist's reasoning?

  1. A
    generalizes about all tomato varieties based on a restricted sample of heirloom cultivars
  2. B
    questions the accuracy of empirical field assays without offering countervailing scientific data
  3. treats a condition that is necessary for producing a specific outcome as though it were sufficient to guarantee that outcomeCevap
  4. D
    mistakes an intermediate finding regarding soil composition for the argument's main conclusion
  5. E
    infers that aromatic ester production is impossible in the absence of human greenhouse cultivation

Cevap

The botanist's argument is flawed because it treats a condition that is required (necessary) for the development of high aromatic ester concentrations as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
The botanist establishes that the specific balance of mycorrhizal fungi is a necessary condition for heirloom cultivars to develop high aromatic ester concentrations, indicated by the indicator phrase 'in order for... the soil... must contain'. The second premise confirms that this necessary condition has been satisfied in the greenhouse plots. From this, the botanist concludes that the tomatoes will inevitably develop high ester concentrations. This inference is logically invalid because meeting a necessary condition does not guarantee the outcome; other necessary factors might be missing. The argument commits the classic formal flaw of confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional relationship in the first premise
High ester concentrations require a specific mycorrhizal fungal balance (Ester Development → Fungal Balance).
The phrase 'in order for... must contain' introduces a necessary condition.
2
Analyze the factual evidence and the conclusion drawn
The premise confirms the presence of the fungal balance; the conclusion asserts that high ester concentrations will definitely occur.
The botanist attempts to deduce the sufficient condition from the presence of the necessary condition (affirming the consequent).
3
Identify the structural reasoning error
Confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.
Having the required soil fungi does not preclude other requirements (such as light, water, or temperature) from failing to be met.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Conditional Reasoning Flaws (Mistaking Necessary for Sufficient)
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru