Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaFalse Dilemma (False Dichotomy)

Space Agency Director: Due to severe budgetary constraints, our agency has enough funding to fully support only one flagship initiative over the next ten years. We must prioritize the establishment of a permanent lunar outpost. If we do not proceed with the construction of this lunar base, we will be forced to abandon crewed spaceflight entirely, relegating our program to launching only automated probes and orbiters. Therefore, to maintain a human presence in space, the lunar base is our only path forward.

The director's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. A
    illicitly trades on an ambiguity in the phrase 'human presence' to draw its conclusion
  2. B
    confuses a condition that would guarantee the abandonment of crewed spaceflight with one that is required for its abandonment
  3. fails to consider that a human presence in space could be maintained by funding a crewed mission other than a permanent lunar outpostCevap
  4. D
    presumes, without providing justification, that the scientific value of a permanent lunar outpost outweighs that of automated probes
  5. E
    overlooks the possibility that the agency's overall budget might be significantly increased within the next ten years

Cevap

The argument overlooks the possibility of maintaining a human presence in space through a different crewed mission besides the lunar outpost.
The director's argument rests on the assumption that there are exactly two mutually exclusive outcomes available to the agency: either build the lunar base, or abandon crewed spaceflight entirely. This is a classic false dilemma. The argument is vulnerable because it ignores a viable third alternative: the single flagship initiative the agency can afford might be a different crewed mission that is not a permanent lunar outpost (such as an orbital space station or a crewed asteroid mission). By failing to consider this middle-ground possibility, the reasoning is structurally flawed.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'to maintain a human presence in space, the lunar base is our only path forward.'
Understanding what the author is trying to prove is the first step in finding the logical gap.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premises: (1) Funding supports only one flagship initiative. (2) If the lunar base isn't built, the agency will launch only automated probes and abandon crewed spaceflight.
The flaw in the reasoning will exist in the connection between these premises and the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical jump from the premises to the conclusion.
The director assumes that the options are strictly binary: either build the lunar base OR abandon crewed spaceflight entirely.
Evaluating the underlying assumptions reveals vulnerabilities in the argument.
4
Categorize the logical flaw.
This is a False Dilemma. The argument artificially restricts the available options, ignoring the possibility of a third choice (e.g., funding a different crewed flagship initiative, like a space station).
Matching the identified logical gap to standard LSAT flaw categories allows us to select the correct description among the answer choices.

Anahtar Kavram

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy)

Bu konudan daha fazla soru