Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorAssumptions in Conditional Logic

Read the following argument:

Any regulatory policy that restricts individual liberties is justified only if it prevents a significant public harm. The newly proposed zoning ordinance will undeniably restrict property owners' liberties. However, this ordinance was designed strictly to increase local tax revenues rather than to address any significant public harm. Therefore, the newly proposed zoning ordinance is not justified.

Statement: The argument's conclusion follows logically if it is assumed that a regulatory policy cannot prevent a significant public harm unless it was explicitly designed to address one.

Cevap: Cevap

Cevap

True
The statement is true because it provides the exact conditional contrapositive needed to bridge the argument's conceptual gap. It connects the premise (the policy lacks the intent to address harm) to the rule's necessary condition (the policy fails to actually prevent harm), thereby guaranteeing the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the conditional rule established in the first sentence.
Rule: If a policy restricts liberties (RL), then (Justified (J) → Prevents Significant Public Harm (PSPH)). Contrapositive: If RL, and NOT PSPH → NOT J.
Identifying the formal logic relationships dictated by 'only if' is mandatory to evaluate the structural validity of the conclusion.
2
Analyze the premises provided specifically about the zoning ordinance.
Premise A: The ordinance restricts liberties (RL). Premise B: The ordinance is NOT designed to address a significant public harm (NOT DPSPH).
We must isolate the exact evidence the author relies upon to attempt to trigger the conclusion.
3
Identify the conclusion and pinpoint the logical gap.
Conclusion: The ordinance is NOT justified (NOT J). The gap exists between the premise 'NOT designed to address harm' (intent) and the required trigger 'does NOT prevent harm' (effect).
To prove NOT J using the rule from Step 1, the argument must prove NOT PSPH. The author improperly assumes NOT DPSPH is sufficient to prove NOT PSPH.
4
Translate the proposed statement and evaluate its logical impact on the argument.
Statement: 'Cannot prevent harm (PSPH) unless designed to do so (DPSPH)' translates to PSPH → DPSPH. The contrapositive is NOT DPSPH → NOT PSPH. Applying this to our premise yields NOT PSPH, which definitively proves NOT J.
We must test if the statement functions as a mathematically sound sufficient assumption that completely seals the logical gap.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Intent and Effect through Sufficient Assumptions (Only If / Unless)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Assumptions in Conditional Logic

Bu konudan daha fazla soru