Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: KolayParallel Reasoning and Parallel Flaw

Match each short argument with the description of its underlying logical structure or flaw.

  • Every employee who meets their sales quota receives an annual bonus. Marcus received an annual bonus; therefore, Marcus must have met his sales quota.Inferring that because a condition is sufficient to guarantee an outcome, the occurrence of that outcome proves the condition was satisfied.
  • If the council approves the new transit line, commuter travel times will decrease. The council rejected the transit line; therefore, commuter travel times will not decrease.Inferring that because a condition is sufficient to guarantee an outcome, the absence of that condition ensures the outcome will not occur.
  • All licensed architects in the firm are certified in green building standards, and several licensed architects lead project teams. Therefore, several team leaders in the firm are certified in green building standards.Drawing a logically valid conclusion that members of an overlapping subset necessarily possess the universal attribute of the broader category.

Cevap

The argument regarding the sales bonus matches the flaw of treating a sufficient condition as necessary; the transit line argument matches the flaw of assuming the absence of a sufficient condition prevents the outcome; and the architect argument matches the valid deduction of a universal property applied to an intersecting subset.
The correct pairings accurately map each stimulus to its exact logical architecture: Marcus's scenario exemplifies affirming the consequent, the transit scenario exemplifies denying the antecedent, and the architectural team scenario demonstrates a valid universal-to-subset deduction.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional structure of the sales bonus argument.
Identified the structure as: If Quota, then Bonus. Bonus occurred, therefore Quota occurred. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent (necessary vs. sufficient confusion).
Determining the conditional relationship reveals whether the inference moves validly or commits a reversal flaw.
2
Analyze the conditional structure of the transit line argument.
Identified the structure as: If Approved, then Decreased Times. Not Approved, therefore Not Decreased Times. This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Checking the truth conditions confirms that rejecting the sufficient condition does not rule out other causes of the outcome.
3
Analyze the quantifier and subset logic of the architect argument.
Identified the structure as: All Architects have Certification; Some Architects are Team Leaders; therefore, Some Team Leaders have Certification. This is a valid syllogistic deduction.
Evaluating set intersections demonstrates that every member of the subset shares the universal property of the whole set.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying isomorphic argument structures, conditional reasoning flaws, and valid subset deductions.
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Parallel Reasoning and Parallel Flaw

Bu konudan daha fazla soru