Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorFlaw in the Reasoning

Conservator: For an ancient ceramic vessel recovered from a marine excavation to maintain its structural stability during desiccation, conservators must subject the artifact to an exhaustive desalination wash that extracts all absorbed soluble salts. The newly recovered Minoan terracotta amphora has just completed a comprehensive three-month desalination treatment that successfully removed every trace of soluble salts from its porous matrix. Consequently, this amphora will maintain its structural stability throughout the drying phase.

The reasoning in the conservator's argument is flawed because the argument

  1. A
    assumes without justification that because a preservation method is effective for terracotta, it must be equally necessary for all other porous archaeological materials.
  2. B
    bases a firm conclusion on the unproven assumption that the chemical analysis used to detect residual soluble salts was entirely error-free.
  3. treats a condition that is necessary for maintaining structural stability as if it were sufficient to guarantee that stability.Cevap
  4. D
    mistakes an intermediate requirement of the conservation procedure for the ultimate outcome that the procedure is designed to achieve.
  5. E
    infers that a phenomenon cannot occur merely because one of its potential causes has been completely eliminated.

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it treats a condition that is necessary for maintaining structural stability as if it were sufficient to guarantee that stability.
The conservator states that extracting all soluble salts is a requirement ('must subject the artifact...') for an ancient ceramic vessel to maintain structural stability. Meeting a necessary condition ensures that failure due to that specific factor is prevented, but it does not guarantee overall success, because other independent hazards during desiccation could still compromise the vessel. Concluding that stability is assured simply because the desalination requirement was fulfilled confuses necessity with sufficiency.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the supporting premises.
Premise: Maintaining structural stability during desiccation requires an exhaustive desalination wash that extracts all absorbed soluble salts (Stability → Salt Extraction). Premise: The amphora underwent desalination and all soluble salts were removed (Salt Extraction achieved). Conclusion: The amphora is guaranteed to maintain its structural stability throughout the drying phase (Stability).
Deconstructing the argument into formal conditional components clarifies the logical relationship between the stated evidence and the inference drawn.
2
Analyze the logical validity of the conditional inference.
The author establishes salt extraction as a necessary condition for structural stability ('must subject the artifact... to extract'). The argument then affirms that the necessary condition has been satisfied and concludes that the outcome is assured, which commits the fallacy of mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient one.
Fulfilling a required condition does not eliminate other potential threats to stability (such as rapid shrinkage, thermal stress, or mechanical weakness).
3
Match the identified reasoning error to the correct descriptive option.
The statement describing the confusion of a necessary condition with a sufficient condition precisely matches the flaw.
Correct identification of abstract flaw descriptions requires precise mapping of logical roles.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing Necessary versus Sufficient Conditions
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru