Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorFlaw in the Reasoning

Epidemiologist: For a regional health authority to successfully eradicate a localized outbreak of an infectious strain, its intervention protocol is required to incorporate both rapid genomic sequencing and localized quarantine mandates. The adjacent county recently deployed the most stringent localized quarantine mandates in the state, but ultimately failed to eradicate the outbreak. This failure clearly indicates that the county's protocol omitted rapid genomic sequencing.

The reasoning in the epidemiologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. A
    infers from the claim that an outcome requires a set of conditions that the outcome will inevitably occur whenever those conditions are met
  2. B
    rejects a claim about the necessity of an intervention by pointing to a case where that intervention failed to produce a desired result
  3. C
    criticizes a specific public health strategy based on a single instance of failure, without considering whether the strategy was fully funded
  4. takes for granted that a set of conditions necessary for a particular outcome is sufficient to guarantee that outcomeCevap
  5. E
    presumes, without providing justification, that rapid genomic sequencing was the only intervention omitted from the adjacent county's protocol

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it takes for granted that a set of conditions necessary for a particular outcome is sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
The argument's first premise establishes that sequencing and quarantines are necessary conditions for eradication (Eradication → Sequencing and Quarantine). The author observes a failure to eradicate despite the presence of quarantines, and concludes sequencing must have been absent. This deduction is only logically sound if sequencing and quarantines are jointly sufficient for eradication (Sequencing and Quarantine → Eradication). By drawing this conclusion, the author takes for granted that these necessary conditions are also sufficient conditions.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the premises and the conditional logic they establish.
Premise 1 states: Eradication requires Sequencing AND Quarantine. (Eradication → Sequencing + Quarantine).
Identifying the formal logic structure is necessary to spot conditional flaws.
2
Analyze the application of the premise to the specific case.
Premise 2 states: The county had Quarantine, but did NOT achieve Eradication.
This sets up the factual scenario that the conclusion attempts to explain.
3
Evaluate the logical validity of the conclusion.
The conclusion states the county MUST have lacked Sequencing. However, if Sequencing and Quarantine are only *necessary* but not *sufficient*, one could have both and still fail to eradicate the outbreak. The conclusion is only valid if having both guarantees success.
This reveals the unstated assumption bridging the premises to the conclusion.
4
Select the option that accurately describes this structural gap.
The correct option correctly identifies that the argument treats necessary conditions as if they were jointly sufficient.
This perfectly matches the identified gap without mischaracterizing the argument's conclusion or premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions (Compound Logic)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru