Tüm alıştırma soruları

899 soru

Soru 221Soru →

Match each conditional statement on the left with its logically valid contrapositive on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The treaty will be signed only if both nations compromise.
Winning the championship requires a strong defense.
Unless the budget is increased, the project will fail.
If the alarm sounds, the building must be evacuated and searched.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches accurately pair each conditional statement with its logically valid contrapositive by reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions, and properly negating both terms.
Each correct pairing takes the original conditional relationship, successfully reverses the sufficient and necessary conditions, and negates both. It also properly applies De Morgan's laws by swapping 'and' to 'or' where applicable.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the sufficient and necessary conditions in each original statement based on logical indicator words (if, only if, requires, unless).
Translated natural language statements into formal conditional logic.
Standardizing the logical structure is a required first step before manipulating the conditions.
2
Apply the rule of contraposition by reversing the order of the conditions and negating both.
Formed the logically equivalent contrapositive for each simple conditional.
The contrapositive is the only formally valid logical deduction that can always be made from a conditional statement.
3
Apply De Morgan's laws to compound conditionals during the negation process.
Converted the 'and' conjunction to an 'or' disjunction when negating the required conditions for the alarm.
When negating a conjunction (A and B), the negation distributes to both terms and changes the operator to a disjunction (~A or ~B).

Anahtar Kavram

Forming Contrapositives
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 222Soru →

In formal logic, accurately diagramming conditional statements is crucial for deductive reasoning. Let MM represent the statement 'The motion is granted' and SS represent the statement 'A settlement is reached'. Match each legal rule on the left with its correct propositional logic translation on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The motion will be granted only if a settlement is reached.
Reaching a settlement ensures that the motion will be granted.
A settlement will be reached unless the motion is granted.
The motion will not be granted if a settlement is reached.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings are: 'only if' maps to M→SM \rightarrow S; 'ensures' maps to S→MS \rightarrow M; 'unless' maps to ∼M→S\sim M \rightarrow S; and 'not... if' maps to S→∼MS \rightarrow \sim M.
Each legal rule features a distinct logical indicator that dictates the direction of the conditional relationship. 'Only if' denotes a necessary condition (M→SM \rightarrow S). 'Ensures' acts identically to 'if', marking a sufficient condition (S→MS \rightarrow M). 'Unless' translates to 'if not', negating one term to form the sufficient condition (∼M→S\sim M \rightarrow S). Finally, an 'if' clause in the middle of a sentence still acts as the sufficient condition, and the negated main clause becomes the necessary condition (S→∼MS \rightarrow \sim M).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the sufficient and necessary conditions for the 'only if' statement.
The motion is granted (MM) is sufficient, and a settlement is reached (SS) is necessary.
The phrase 'only if' immediately precedes the necessary condition.
2
Analyze the statement using 'ensures'.
Reaching a settlement (SS) guarantees the motion (MM), giving S→MS \rightarrow M.
Synonyms for 'if' like 'ensures' or 'guarantees' introduce the sufficient condition.
3
Translate the 'unless' statement into an 'if not' conditional.
The statement becomes 'If the motion is not granted, a settlement will be reached' (∼M→S\sim M \rightarrow S).
The logical equivalent of 'A unless B' is 'If not B, then A'.
4
Determine the trigger and outcome for the 'if' statement containing a negation.
The sufficient condition is 'a settlement is reached' (SS) and the necessary condition is 'the motion will not be granted' (∼M\sim M), yielding S→∼MS \rightarrow \sim M.
The word 'if' introduces the sufficient condition, regardless of where it appears in the sentence.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements
Soru 223Soru →

In an argument by elimination, competing hypotheses are systematically ruled out by specific premises until only one valid option remains. Match each proposed hypothesis for the sudden decline in a local bee population (left) with the specific evidence that logically eliminates it from consideration (right).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The bees were killed by a newly introduced pesticide.
The hive was destroyed by a fungal infection.
The bees starved due to a lack of local flowering plants.
The population was decimated by predatory wasps.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Pesticide hypothesis pairs with the absence of synthetic toxins; Fungal infection pairs with the lack of spores; Starvation pairs with the abundance of blooming flora; Predatory wasps pairs with the absence of bite marks or invasive insects.
Each hypothesis is successfully eliminated by a piece of evidence that directly contradicts a necessary condition for that hypothesis to be true. Recognizing these connections is the foundational skill required to evaluate arguments by elimination.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the pesticide hypothesis.
Match with the evidence regarding chemical analysis and synthetic toxins.
Pesticides are synthetic chemical toxins, so their complete absence directly eliminates this proposed cause.
2
Analyze the fungal infection hypothesis.
Match with the laboratory autopsies finding no spores.
Fungi spread and reproduce via spores and mycelium. The lack of this biological evidence rules out a fungal cause.
3
Analyze the starvation hypothesis.
Match with the botanical surveys showing abundant flora.
Bees rely on blooming flora for nectar and pollen. An abundance of food sources eliminates the possibility of starvation.
4
Analyze the predatory wasp hypothesis.
Match with the observation of no bite marks or invasive insects.
Predatory attacks would leave physical evidence on the hives and the bees. The absence of such damage rules out predators.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Elimination
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 224Soru →

Below are four excerpts from a panel discussion regarding a proposal to implement a universal basic income (UBI). Match each excerpt to the abstract description of the method of reasoning it primarily employs.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Implementing UBI to solve systemic inequality is akin to giving painkillers to a patient with a fractured limb; it masks the immediate discomfort but entirely fails to address the underlying structural damage.
The assertion that guaranteed baseline wealth inherently degrades a population's work ethic is decisively undermined by the Dauphin municipal pilot, wherein employment rates held steady while public health metrics surged.
If we embrace the premise that the state is unconditionally obligated to fulfill every material need, we must logically concede that the state possesses the authority to dictate the specific labor individuals must perform to fund those very needs.
Advocates point to last year's unprecedented economic expansion as definitive proof that the pilot program succeeded; however, they conveniently ignore the simultaneous surge in global demand for our chief export.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Excerpt 1 uses an analogy comparing policy to medicine; Excerpt 2 offers a specific counterexample to a general rule; Excerpt 3 draws out an absurd or unacceptable consequence of a premise; Excerpt 4 provides an alternative causal explanation for an observed effect.
Each excerpt perfectly illustrates a classic argumentative technique tested on the LSAT: analogical reasoning (comparing policy to medicine), counterexample (using Dauphin to refute a rule), reductio ad absurdum (extending a premise to forced labor), and alternative causal explanation (export demand driving the economy).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first excerpt to abstract its argumentative structure.
The author compares an economic policy to treating a fracture with painkillers, which maps to the method of analogy.
Recognizing comparisons utilizing 'is akin to' or 'is like' helps identify analogical reasoning.
2
Analyze the second excerpt to abstract its argumentative structure.
The author uses the 'Dauphin municipal pilot' to disprove a rule about work ethic, mapping to the use of a counterexample.
Spotting specific real-world instances deployed to disprove broad, categorical assertions reveals the counterexample method.
3
Analyze the third excerpt to abstract its argumentative structure.
The author shows how accepting a premise forces one to accept a tyrannical conclusion, mapping to reductio ad absurdum.
The 'If we embrace X... we must logically concede Y' structure indicates demonstrating an unacceptable consequence.
4
Analyze the fourth excerpt to abstract its argumentative structure.
The author introduces 'global demand for our chief export' as the real reason for the boom, mapping to an alternative causal explanation.
Highlighting a simultaneous event that could cause the outcome points directly to an alternative explanation flaw/strategy.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 225Soru →

Read the following argument from an anthropologist. Then, match each excerpt from the argument to the statement that best describes its structural role.

Anthropologist: The prevailing hypothesis regarding the collapse of the Classic Maya civilization points to a period of prolonged drought as the primary cause. But this drought hypothesis is ultimately unconvincing. While paleoclimatological records do confirm a severe drought during that era, several major Maya cities located in the driest regions continued to thrive for centuries after the drought began. Therefore, factors other than climate change must have been the primary drivers of the societal collapse.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The prevailing hypothesis regarding the collapse of the Classic Maya civilization points to a period of prolonged drought as the primary cause.
this drought hypothesis is ultimately unconvincing
paleoclimatological records do confirm a severe drought during that era
several major Maya cities located in the driest regions continued to thrive for centuries after the drought began
factors other than climate change must have been the primary drivers of the societal collapse

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches identify the precise structural role of each statement, distinguishing the ultimate main conclusion ('factors other than climate change...') from a subsidiary conclusion, premises, and opposing viewpoints.
By breaking down the argument structurally, we can see that the author sets up an opposing claim, concedes a supporting fact for it, but introduces strong counter-evidence. This evidence leads to a subsidiary conclusion (the opposing claim is unconvincing), which leads to the final main conclusion (other factors must be responsible).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that factors other than climate change must have been the primary drivers of the collapse.
This is the ultimate claim the author is trying to prove, appearing at the end of the logical chain.
2
Identify the opposing viewpoint being argued against.
The opposing view is that the collapse was caused primarily by a period of prolonged drought.
The author introduces this as the 'prevailing hypothesis' before rejecting it.
3
Locate the subsidiary conclusion.
The subsidiary conclusion is that the drought hypothesis is ultimately unconvincing.
This statement is supported by the evidence of thriving cities and, in turn, supports the main conclusion.
4
Distinguish between the concession and the counter-evidence.
The concession is the confirmation of severe drought. The counter-evidence is the fact that cities in driest regions thrived.
The concession acknowledges a point in favor of the opposition, while the counter-evidence directly undermines the opposition.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions and Argument Structure
Soru 226Soru →

Match each set of conditional premises with its logically valid chained conclusion or its valid contrapositive.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

If the meeting is held, the training is conducted. If the training is conducted, the project is approved.
If the training is conducted, the review is completed. If the review is completed, the meeting is held.
If the project is approved, the meeting is held. If the meeting is held, the review is completed.
If the review is completed, the project is approved. If the project is approved, the training is conducted.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The logically valid pairs map each premise set to its direct transitive chain or the contrapositive of that chain.
Each valid pairing is derived by connecting two conditional statements to form a chain (A -> B and B -> C yields A -> C). For two of the pairs, the correct matching item provides the contrapositive of this chain (since A -> C implies ~C -> ~A).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first set of premises.
Chain: Meeting -> Training -> Project. Direct inference: Meeting -> Project. This matches the item stating 'If the meeting is held, the project is approved'.
Transitive logic allows us to bypass the intermediate necessary condition.
2
Analyze the second set of premises.
Chain: Training -> Review -> Meeting. Direct inference: Training -> Meeting. The contrapositive of this inference is 'Not Meeting -> Not Training'.
If the final necessary condition fails, the initial sufficient condition could not have occurred.
3
Analyze the third set of premises.
Chain: Project -> Meeting -> Review. Direct inference: Project -> Review. This matches the item stating 'If the project is approved, the review is completed'.
Linking the conditions yields a direct forward inference.
4
Analyze the fourth set of premises.
Chain: Review -> Project -> Training. Direct inference: Review -> Training. The contrapositive is 'Not Training -> Not Review'.
Reversing and negating the valid direct chain produces a valid contrapositive.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional statements and forming contrapositives
Soru 227Soru →

Review the following argumentative passages and pair each excerpt with the abstract description that most accurately characterizes its primary method of reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Some argue that autonomous vehicles should be banned from city centers until they achieve a zero-accident rate. But this standard is unreasonable. We allow human drivers on the road even though they cause thousands of accidents daily. We do not demand perfection from humans; we only expect them to meet a certain threshold of competence. We should apply a similar threshold to autonomous systems.
A new proposal suggests that to eliminate wealth inequality, the government should simply print enough money to give every citizen a million dollars. However, if everyone suddenly possessed a million dollars, the purchasing power of the currency would collapse immediately. A loaf of bread would cost thousands of dollars, and real wealth disparities would remain unchanged or even worsen.
The sudden abandonment of the ancient settlement could only have resulted from three causes: a devastating disease, a natural disaster, or assimilation into local populations. Archaeological digs have uncovered no mass graves or signs of epidemic. Furthermore, geological records show no evidence of extreme weather events or earthquakes during that decade. We must conclude, therefore, that the inhabitants integrated with neighboring communities.
Many biologists formerly maintained that all complex cooperative behavior in animals is strictly a result of kin selection, where individuals help only those with whom they share genetics. Yet, vampire bats routinely regurgitate blood to feed starving roost-mates to whom they are entirely unrelated, purely on the basis of past reciprocal sharing.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The autonomous vehicles passage matches with criticizing a standard via inconsistency with a similar context (Analogy). The wealth inequality passage matches with undermining a policy by showing it defeats its own purpose (Reductio ad absurdum). The ancient settlement passage matches with establishing a conclusion by ruling out other explanations (Elimination). The vampire bat passage matches with refuting a generalization by providing a specific instance (Counterexample).
Each passage employs a distinct, formal logical strategy. The first uses an analogy (comparing AI to humans). The second traces destructive consequences that thwart a goal. The third systematically eliminates alternative historical hypotheses. The fourth offers a direct counterexample to a scientific rule.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the autonomous vehicle passage to identify its logical structure.
Identified that it defends autonomous vehicles by comparing them to the accepted imperfections of human drivers.
To recognize the argument proceeds by analogy, pointing out an inconsistency in standards.
2
Analyze the wealth inequality passage to determine how it attacks the proposal.
Identified that it traces the logical consequences of printing money (inflation) to prove it would not actually solve inequality.
To recognize the method of showing a proposal is self-defeating or leads to consequences that undermine its intent.
3
Examine the ancient settlement passage's premise-conclusion relationship.
Identified a list of three possibilities, followed by the explicit rejection of the first two based on a lack of evidence.
To match the structure with the formal method of eliminating alternatives.
4
Evaluate the vampire bat passage's relationship to the biologists' claim.
Identified that the bats represent a factual exception to the rule that all complex cooperation requires shared genetics.
To categorize the argument as the use of a counterexample against a universal generalization.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 228Soru →

Read the following argument carefully. Match each excerpt from the argument (on the left) with the statement that most accurately describes its structural role in the argument (on the right).

"Proponents of 'rewilding' argue that reintroducing apex predators to disturbed ecosystems will naturally restore ecological balance. They base this on the assumption that these ecosystems still possess the underlying carrying capacity to support such predators. This assumption, however, is demonstrably false. Decades of intensive agriculture have fundamentally altered soil microbiomes, drastically reducing the primary productivity that forms the base of the food web. Because of this reduction, herbivore populations cannot recover to historical levels. It follows that reintroduced apex predators would quickly exhaust their prey base and face starvation. Consequently, rewilding efforts that focus on apex predators without first restoring soil health are destined to fail. The true path to ecological restoration must therefore begin at the microscopic level."

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

reintroducing apex predators to disturbed ecosystems will naturally restore ecological balance
these ecosystems still possess the underlying carrying capacity to support such predators
herbivore populations cannot recover to historical levels
rewilding efforts that focus on apex predators without first restoring soil health are destined to fail
The true path to ecological restoration must therefore begin at the microscopic level

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The excerpts accurately map to their structural roles by tracing the argument from the opposing view, through the author's premises and subsidiary conclusions, to the final prescriptive main conclusion.
The argument follows a classic structure: it introduces an opposing view, attacks the assumption underlying that view with factual evidence, builds a chain of intermediate conclusions to show why the opposing view's policy will fail, and concludes with a prescriptive claim about what should be done instead. Each excerpt fits perfectly into this structural analysis.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the opposing view and its basis.
The argument starts by outlining the proponents' conclusion ('reintroducing apex predators... will naturally restore') and the assumption they base it on ('ecosystems still possess... carrying capacity').
Understanding the context of the author's critique requires first identifying what specific claims the author is responding to.
2
Trace the author's counter-argument chain from the initial premise.
The author introduces a factual premise about altered microbiomes, which directly leads to the intermediate conclusion about herbivore populations ('herbivore populations cannot recover...').
This establishes the causal chain of evidence that refutes the proponents' assumption about carrying capacity.
3
Identify the major subsidiary conclusion regarding the proposed policy.
The chain of evidence leads to the conclusion that the proponents' specific policy of focusing on apex predators will fail ('rewilding efforts... are destined to fail').
This evaluates the outcome of the opposed policy based on the author's evidence, setting up the final takeaway.
4
Locate the final, overarching point the author is trying to prove.
The argument culminates in a prescriptive claim about how restoration should actually be handled ('The true path... must therefore begin at the microscopic level').
The main conclusion must be the statement that is supported by the rest of the argument but does not support any further claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions and Diagramming Argument Structure
Soru 229Soru →

Read the following argument carefully. Then, match each excerpt from the stimulus to the statement that most accurately describes its structural role in the argument.

"Many agricultural historians argue that the adoption of the heavy plow in medieval Europe directly caused a rapid increase in population by drastically improving crop yields. Detailed manorial records, however, indicate that population growth in several key regions actually preceded the widespread introduction of the heavy plow by nearly a century. Consequently, the heavy plow was a result, rather than the primary cause, of medieval demographic shifts. After all, expanding populations require increased food production to sustain larger workforces. This mounting pressure to produce more food clearly forced medieval communities to innovate and adopt more efficient agricultural technologies."

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

"...the adoption of the heavy plow in medieval Europe directly caused a rapid increase in population..."
"...population growth in several key regions actually preceded the widespread introduction of the heavy plow..."
"...the heavy plow was a result, rather than the primary cause, of medieval demographic shifts."
"...This mounting pressure to produce more food clearly forced medieval communities to innovate and adopt more efficient agricultural technologies."

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The excerpt about historians arguing the plow caused population increase matches the viewpoint being rejected. The excerpt regarding manorial records matches the premise providing empirical evidence. The excerpt stating the plow was a result rather than a cause matches the main conclusion. The excerpt regarding mounting pressure forcing communities to innovate matches the intermediate conclusion.
Each excerpt perfectly maps to a specific structural role. The argument is built by introducing an opposing view, providing a factual premise to contradict it, stating the main conclusion, and then providing a subsidiary argument (a general premise leading to an intermediate conclusion) to explain why the main conclusion makes sense.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first sentence of the stimulus.
Identifies the claim that the plow caused a population increase as the opposing viewpoint.
The phrase 'Many agricultural historians argue...' introduces a position that the author immediately counters with 'however, this causal narrative is fundamentally flawed,' establishing it as the rejected view.
2
Examine the second sentence containing the 'Detailed manorial records'.
Identifies this sentence as a premise providing historical evidence.
It presents factual, timeline-based data used to support the author's impending conclusion.
3
Evaluate the third sentence beginning with 'Consequently'.
Identifies this sentence as the main conclusion.
The word 'Consequently' signals a conclusion, and this statement (that the plow was a result, not a cause) represents the author's primary argument against the historians' narrative.
4
Analyze the final two sentences together.
Identifies the final sentence as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
The final sentence is supported by the preceding premise ('expanding populations require increased food'). In turn, it provides the causal mechanism (incentive to innovate) that explains the timeline, thereby supporting the main conclusion in the third sentence.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions vs. Subsidiary Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 230Soru →

A pharmaceutical regulatory agency uses the following propositional variables to evaluate clinical trials:

MM: Marketing is approved
TT: Toxicity is low
RR: Regulatory audit is passed
CC: Control group improves

Match each English policy statement with its logically equivalent formal diagram. Note that the correct match may represent either the direct translation or its valid contrapositive.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Marketing is approved only if toxicity is low.
Toxicity is low if the regulatory audit is passed.
The control group will not improve unless toxicity is low.
Passing the regulatory audit requires that the control group improves.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Statement 1 matches ∼T→∼M\sim T \rightarrow \sim M; Statement 2 matches ∼T→∼R\sim T \rightarrow \sim R; Statement 3 matches C→TC \rightarrow T; Statement 4 matches ∼C→∼R\sim C \rightarrow \sim R.
Each English statement translates to a specific formal logic relationship based on its indicator words. Finding the correct match requires establishing the base conditional statement and, if the direct translation is not an option, taking its valid contrapositive (reversing and negating both terms).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze 'Marketing is approved only if toxicity is low.'
Translates to M→TM \rightarrow T. Its contrapositive is ∼T→∼M\sim T \rightarrow \sim M.
The phrase 'only if' always modifies the necessary condition, which belongs on the right side of the arrow.
2
Analyze 'Toxicity is low if the regulatory audit is passed.'
Translates to R→TR \rightarrow T. Its contrapositive is ∼T→∼R\sim T \rightarrow \sim R.
When 'if' is used alone in the middle of a sentence, it modifies the sufficient condition, which belongs on the left side of the arrow.
3
Analyze 'The control group will not improve unless toxicity is low.'
Translates to ∼T→∼C\sim T \rightarrow \sim C. Its contrapositive is C→TC \rightarrow T.
The term 'unless' means 'if not'. Applying this gives: If toxicity is not low (∼T\sim T), the control group will not improve (∼C\sim C).
4
Analyze 'Passing the regulatory audit requires that the control group improves.'
Translates to R→CR \rightarrow C. Its contrapositive is ∼C→∼R\sim C \rightarrow \sim R.
The word 'requires' indicates that the subsequent concept is mandatory, making it the necessary condition (right side of the arrow).

Anahtar Kavram

Translating conditional indicator words ('only if', 'if', 'unless', 'requires') into formal logic and deriving their contrapositives.
Soru 231Soru →

Read the following argument carefully.

In evolutionary biology, 'convergent evolution' occurs when distantly related lineages independently develop analogous structures to adapt to parallel environmental selective pressures—for instance, the hydrodynamic, streamlined morphologies of both cetaceans (mammals) and chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes). These physiological traits do not emanate from a recent shared genetic lineage, but rather from a shared imperative to overcome identical fluid dynamic constraints. A strictly isomorphic phenomenon is observable in the contemporary software industry regarding the user experience architectures of enterprise productivity suites. Despite being architected upon fundamentally incompatible legacy codebases and engineered by antagonistic corporate entities devoid of shared intellectual property, the graphical interfaces of elite word processors and financial modeling software have converged upon a nearly indistinguishable topology. Just as fluid dynamic realities compel biological morphological uniformity, the immutable cognitive bandwidth limits of human users and the relentless market mandate for frictionless cross-application interoperability have compelled an architectural homogeneity upon these disparate digital tools.

Based on the argument by analogy presented above, match each element from the target domain (the software industry) with its exact structural equivalent in the base domain (evolutionary biology).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Incompatible legacy codebases and the absence of shared intellectual property
The nearly indistinguishable topology of modern graphical interfaces
The immutable cognitive bandwidth limits and mandate for interoperability
Enterprise productivity suites engineered by antagonistic corporate entities

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct mapping pairs 'Incompatible legacy codebases...' with 'The condition of not emanating from a recent shared genetic lineage'; 'The nearly indistinguishable topology...' with 'The independent development of analogous structures...'; 'The immutable cognitive bandwidth limits...' with 'Parallel environmental selective pressures...'; and 'Enterprise productivity suites...' with 'Distantly related lineages...'.
The correct mapping aligns the structural elements of both domains perfectly: the unrelated subjects (suites/lineages), their lack of common origin (codebases/genetic lineage), the forces acting upon them (bandwidth limits/environmental pressures), and the resulting convergence (topology/morphology).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the base domain and the target domain in the stimulus.
Base domain: evolutionary biology (convergent evolution). Target domain: software industry (convergent interface design).
Argument by analogy relies on mapping structural components from a familiar base domain to a complex target domain.
2
Determine the structural role of the subjects undergoing change.
In biology, these are the 'distantly related lineages' (cetaceans and chondrichthyes). In software, these are the 'enterprise productivity suites engineered by antagonistic corporate entities'.
Establishing the primary subjects of the analogy anchors the remaining relational mappings.
3
Map the starting conditions of the subjects.
Biological subjects lack a 'recent shared genetic lineage'. Software subjects are built on 'incompatible legacy codebases and the absence of shared intellectual property'.
This pairs the independent origins that make the subsequent convergence notable.
4
Map the external forces driving the convergence.
Biology features 'parallel environmental selective pressures' (fluid dynamic constraints). Software features 'immutable cognitive bandwidth limits' and 'mandate for interoperability'.
Identifying the causal mechanisms is critical to understanding the mechanism of the analogy.
5
Map the final convergent outcomes.
Biological lineages develop 'analogous structures and streamlined morphologies'. Software suites develop a 'nearly indistinguishable topology of modern graphical interfaces'.
This pairs the identical endpoints resulting from the external pressures.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Analogy
Soru 232Soru →

The following paragraph presents an argument about art history:

Some art historians maintain that the recent discovery of the lost frescoes at Villa Sabina proves that the painter Caracciolo was active in Rome a decade earlier than previously believed. This assertion, however, is unfounded. Caracciolo's distinct method of layering lapis lazuli pigment did not develop until his later Neapolitan period. Furthermore, the chemical composition of the plaster at Villa Sabina matches techniques widely used by other Roman guilds during that time, but not by Caracciolo's known workshop. Because of these discrepancies, the frescoes were likely painted by a contemporary imitator rather than by Caracciolo himself. Thus, the discovery provides no reliable evidence for revising the timeline of Caracciolo's career.

Identify the role played in the author's reasoning by each of the specific excerpts below. Match the excerpt to its exact structural function.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

"...the recent discovery of the lost frescoes at Villa Sabina proves that the painter Caracciolo was active in Rome a decade earlier than previously believed."
"Caracciolo's distinct method of layering lapis lazuli pigment did not develop until his later Neapolitan period."
"...the frescoes were likely painted by a contemporary imitator rather than by Caracciolo himself."
"...the discovery provides no reliable evidence for revising the timeline of Caracciolo's career."

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The statement about the frescoes proving an earlier timeline is the opposing viewpoint to be refuted. The statement about lapis lazuli is a premise supporting a subsidiary conclusion. The statement that an imitator painted the frescoes is a subsidiary conclusion. The final claim that the discovery provides no reliable evidence for revising the timeline is the main conclusion.
The argument begins by presenting an opposing viewpoint that the author intends to disprove. The author then provides factual evidence regarding pigment methods and plaster composition. This evidence serves as premises to establish an intermediate claim: that the frescoes were painted by an imitator. Finally, this intermediate claim is used to justify the author's ultimate point, which is the main conclusion: that there is no reason to revise the timeline of Caracciolo's career.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first sentence and the author's reaction to it.
The author introduces a view held by 'some art historians' and immediately labels it 'unfounded', establishing this as the opposing claim to be refuted.
Identifying the opposing viewpoint helps separate the core argument from the background context.
2
Identify the ultimate point the author is trying to establish.
The author's final takeaway is that 'the discovery provides no reliable evidence for revising the timeline', marked by the conclusion indicator 'Thus'.
The main conclusion is the logical endpoint of the entire argument.
3
Determine the function of the statement about the imitator.
The statement that 'the frescoes were likely painted by a contemporary imitator' is supported by evidence about pigment and plaster, and it in turn supports the main conclusion.
A statement that acts as both a conclusion and a premise is a subsidiary conclusion.
4
Determine the function of the statement regarding lapis lazuli pigment.
This is a factual claim used to prove that Caracciolo did not paint the frescoes, making it a premise.
Premises are foundational facts or evidence used to build intermediate or main conclusions.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions and Structural Roles
Soru 233Soru →

A civil aviation authority is formalizing its autonomous vehicle protocols into a logical database. The fundamental propositions are defined as follows:

AA: The airspace is restricted
BB: The beacon is activated
CC: The clearance is revoked
DD: The drone is grounded

Match each complex English regulatory rule to a logically equivalent formal representation. (Note: ∼\sim denotes logical negation, and →\rightarrow denotes implication. The correct formal representations may be in their contrapositive forms.)

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The airspace is restricted unless the beacon is activated.
The drone is grounded only if the airspace is restricted and the clearance is revoked.
The only drones that are grounded are those for which the beacon is not activated.
Activating the beacon without revoking the clearance ensures that the drone is grounded.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings are: Left 1 with Right 2, Left 2 with Right 4, Left 3 with Right 1, and Left 4 with Right 3.
Each correct pair logically links a complex English conditional statement to its precise formal contrapositive. Success requires two distinct analytical actions: accurately diagramming the initial statement using syntactic indicator words, and then strictly applying logical negation rules (including De Morgan's Laws for compound conditions) to locate the equivalent formal expression.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the 'unless' statement (Left 1).
Yields ∼B→A\sim B \rightarrow A. Then form the contrapositive to find the match: ∼A→B\sim A \rightarrow B (Right 2).
Statements using 'unless' require treating the modified term as necessary, and negating the remaining term as sufficient. Since the direct translation is absent, the contrapositive is required.
2
Translate the 'only if' statement containing a compound necessary condition (Left 2).
Yields D→(A and C)D \rightarrow (A \text{ and } C). Applying the contrapositive and De Morgan's Laws yields (∼A or ∼C)→∼D(\sim A \text{ or } \sim C) \rightarrow \sim D (Right 4).
Indicator 'only if' designates the necessary condition. When negating a compound 'and' statement during contraposition, it must flip to an 'or'.
3
Translate 'The only' statement (Left 3).
Yields D→∼BD \rightarrow \sim B. Its contrapositive is B→∼DB \rightarrow \sim D (Right 1).
The phrase 'The only' identifies the sufficient condition. Negating both sides and reversing gives the proper contrapositive.
4
Translate the 'ensures' statement with a 'without' modifier (Left 4).
Yields (B and ∼C)→D(B \text{ and } \sim C) \rightarrow D. The contrapositive is ∼D→(∼B or C)\sim D \rightarrow (\sim B \text{ or } C) (Right 3).
'Ensures' functions as an 'if' (sufficient). 'Without' acts as an 'and not'. Applying De Morgan's Laws to the contrapositive flips the 'and' back to an 'or'.

Anahtar Kavram

Advanced Conditional Logic: Translating complex English indicators ('unless', 'only if', 'the only') and applying De Morgan's Laws to form contrapositives of compound statements.
Soru 234Soru →

Read the following argument concerning technological regulation:

'Some legal scholars contend that imposing strict liability on software developers for algorithmic bias will irreparably hinder the advancement of artificial intelligence. This apprehension, however, is fundamentally misguided. The history of technological regulation demonstrates that strict liability frameworks actually accelerate innovation by forcing industries to standardize safety protocols. Furthermore, because standardized safety protocols inevitably increase public trust in emerging technologies, strict liability is ultimately beneficial to the software industry. Therefore, to ensure the long-term viability of artificial intelligence, regulatory agencies must implement strict liability standards for algorithmic development.'

Which structural role does each of the following excerpts play within the argument?

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

"...imposing strict liability on software developers... will irreparably hinder the advancement of artificial intelligence"
"...strict liability frameworks actually accelerate innovation by forcing industries to standardize safety protocols"
"...strict liability is ultimately beneficial to the software industry"
"...regulatory agencies must implement strict liability standards for algorithmic development"

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The excerpt regarding hindering AI advancement pairs with the undermined viewpoint. The excerpt regarding accelerating innovation pairs with a premise supporting an intermediate conclusion. The excerpt stating strict liability is beneficial pairs with the subsidiary conclusion. The excerpt recommending regulatory action pairs with the main conclusion.
The argument structurally unfolds by presenting an opposing view (Excerpt 1), refuting it using foundational premises (Excerpt 2), drawing an intermediate conclusion from those premises (Excerpt 3), and using that intermediate conclusion to justify the ultimate recommendation, which is the main conclusion (Excerpt 4).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the author's primary goal in writing the stimulus.
The author wants to prove that regulatory agencies should implement strict liability standards.
This is the ultimate recommendation that is supported by all other statements in the argument.
2
Analyze the relationship between the supporting statements.
The claims about accelerating innovation and increasing public trust are used to prove that strict liability is 'ultimately beneficial.'
This structural relationship establishes 'ultimately beneficial' as an intermediate conclusion, which then acts as a premise for the main conclusion.
3
Determine the role of the opening sentence.
It presents a concern held by 'some legal scholars' that the author explicitly calls 'fundamentally misguided.'
The author introduces this opposing view merely to refute it and build their own counter-argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Argument Structure and Main Conclusions
Soru 235Soru →

Match each of the following culinary certification rules to its correct logical contrapositive diagram.

Assume the following variables:
MM = Master status is achieved
TT = Technique is perfected
FF = Final exam is passed
EE = Critical error occurs

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Master status is achieved only if the technique is perfected.
Failing to perfect the technique ensures that the final exam is failed.
The final exam is passed unless a critical error occurs.
No master status is achieved without passing the final exam.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches require translating each English conditional statement into its baseline logical diagram, and then finding the logically equivalent contrapositive for each among the choices.
Each correct match pairs the original English statement with its logically equivalent contrapositive. By successfully identifying the sufficient and necessary conditions encoded in terms like 'only if', 'ensures', 'unless', and 'no... without', you derive the correct baseline diagram. Negating and reversing both terms then yields the provided answers.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate rule 1 and find its contrapositive.
'Master status is achieved only if the technique is perfected' translates to M→TM \rightarrow T. The contrapositive is ∼T→∼M\sim T \rightarrow \sim M.
The phrase 'only if' always precedes the necessary condition.
2
Translate rule 2 and find its contrapositive.
'Failing to perfect the technique ensures that the final exam is failed' translates to ∼T→∼F\sim T \rightarrow \sim F. The contrapositive is F→TF \rightarrow T.
The word 'ensures' functions as a sufficient condition indicator.
3
Translate rule 3 and find its contrapositive.
'The final exam is passed unless a critical error occurs' translates to ∼E→F\sim E \rightarrow F. The contrapositive is ∼F→E\sim F \rightarrow E.
The word 'unless' is logically equivalent to 'if not', negating the other term to form the sufficient condition.
4
Translate rule 4 and find its contrapositive.
'No master status is achieved without passing the final exam' translates to M→FM \rightarrow F. The contrapositive is ∼F→∼M\sim F \rightarrow \sim M.
The formula 'No X without Y' means that Y is required for X, thus X is the sufficient condition and Y is the necessary condition.

Anahtar Kavram

Translating diverse conditional language into logical symbols and recognizing contrapositives.
Soru 236Soru →

Analyze the following argument concerning the Bronze Age collapse:

'Although historians frequently attribute the collapse of the Bronze Age societal network to a singular catastrophic event, such as a massive earthquake storm, this hypothesis is unsustainable. A singular catastrophic event would have caused simultaneous abandonment of urban centers across the Mediterranean. However, archaeological stratigraphy reveals that urban centers in the Levant were abandoned incrementally over a period of seventy years. Clearly, then, the systemic collapse was a protracted process rather than a sudden event. Furthermore, since protracted systemic collapses are invariably driven by interconnected economic disruptions rather than isolated natural disasters, the demise of the Bronze Age network must have been precipitated by a breakdown in international trade.'

Match each excerpted statement from the argument to the precise structural role it plays.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A singular catastrophic event would have caused simultaneous abandonment of urban centers across the Mediterranean.
Archaeological stratigraphy reveals that urban centers in the Levant were abandoned incrementally over a period of seventy years.
The systemic collapse was a protracted process rather than a sudden event.
The demise of the Bronze Age network must have been precipitated by a breakdown in international trade.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The conditional prediction about simultaneous abandonment outlines the consequences of the rejected hypothesis. The archaeological evidence of incremental abandonment serves as a primary premise. The claim that the collapse was a protracted process is an intermediate conclusion. The final claim regarding a breakdown in international trade is the main conclusion.
The argument utilizes a complex, multi-step structure. It begins by stating a hypothesis it intends to reject (singular event). It then establishes a testable implication of that hypothesis (simultaneous abandonment). By introducing primary factual evidence that contradicts this implication (incremental abandonment), the author derives an intermediate conclusion via Modus Tollens (the collapse was protracted, not sudden). Finally, applying a general principle about protracted collapses, the author uses the intermediate conclusion to deduce the main conclusion (the cause was a breakdown in international trade).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Locate the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is that the demise must have been precipitated by a breakdown in international trade.
This is the ultimate claim the author builds toward, combining a general principle about protracted collapses with a prior deduction.
2
Identify the intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion.
The intermediate conclusion is that the systemic collapse was a protracted process rather than a sudden event.
This statement is supported by physical evidence and is subsequently used as a premise to prove the main conclusion.
3
Identify the evidence used to support the intermediate conclusion.
The evidence is that archaeological stratigraphy reveals urban centers were abandoned incrementally.
This is a factual, undisputed premise that directly forces the conclusion that the process was protracted.
4
Determine the role of the hypothetical conditional claim.
The claim that a singular event would have caused simultaneous abandonment outlines the expected result of a sudden catastrophe.
It establishes the criteria necessary to falsify the prevailing hypothesis that the author wishes to discredit.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate conclusions and complex argument topology.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 237Soru →

Read the philosopher's argument below carefully.

Philosopher: Proponents of strict bio-conservation argue that we have a moral duty to prevent the extinction of any currently existing species, as each species represents a unique, irreplaceable thread in the ecological tapestry. However, this is like arguing that a library must preserve every single manuscript ever written, regardless of its quality or the cost of preservation. Just as a library with finite space and resources must curate its collection, prioritizing works of significant historical or literary value to maintain a functional and useful institution, environmental policymakers, possessing limited resources, must prioritize the preservation of keystone species that are crucial for the stability of the entire ecosystem, rather than attempting to save every single species indiscriminately.

Match the components of the philosopher's library analogy (the base case) with their structural counterparts in the argument regarding bio-conservation (the target case).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Every single manuscript ever written
Works of significant historical or literary value
A functional and useful institution
The library's finite space and resources

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct mapping correctly aligns the structural roles: indiscriminate collection items map to any existing species; prioritized high-value items map to keystone species; the overarching goal of a functional institution maps to ecosystem stability; and the constraint of library space maps to policymakers' limited resources.
The correct mapping is structurally isomorphic. The author uses the absurdity of saving 'every single manuscript' to highlight the flaw in saving 'any currently existing species'. To solve the library's 'finite space', one saves 'works of significant value' to maintain a 'functional institution'. Similarly, to solve the 'limited resources' problem, one saves 'keystone species' to maintain 'ecosystem stability'.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the base case (the library analogy).
Identify the four key elements: the indiscriminate collection (every manuscript), the constrained reality (finite space/resources), the selective priority (works of significant value), and the ultimate goal (a functional institution).
Understanding the functional role of each element in the source analogy is necessary before mapping them to the target subject.
2
Analyze the structure of the target case (bio-conservation).
Identify the corresponding four elements: the indiscriminate collection (any currently existing species), the constrained reality (policymakers' limited resources), the selective priority (keystone species), and the ultimate goal (stability of the entire ecosystem).
Deconstructing the target argument reveals the structural slots that the analogy is meant to fill.
3
Map the corresponding elements based on their argumentative function.
Link the indiscriminate items together, the practical constraints together, the prioritized items together, and the ultimate goals together.
An argument by analogy relies on a structural isomorphism; matching elements must serve the exact same logical role in both domains.

Anahtar Kavram

In an argument by analogy, the strength and meaning of the argument derive from the structural mapping of relationships from a familiar base case to a complex target case. Correctly identifying these relational roles is essential for evaluating the argument.
Soru 238Soru →

Match each logical refutation in the left column with the argument in the right column that exhibits an identical parallel structure in its use of a counterexample.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The dean argues that no student can master advanced calculus unless they have first taken linear algebra. But consider the prodigy Riemann. He achieved perfect scores in advanced calculus despite never having studied linear algebra. This demonstrates that prior study of linear algebra is not an absolute prerequisite for mastering advanced calculus.
The mayor insists that implementing a universal basic income guarantees a reduction in petty crime. However, when the neighboring province instituted a universal basic income last decade, their petty crime rates actually increased by fifteen percent. Clearly, this economic policy does not inherently ensure a drop in petty crime.
The anthropologist hypothesizes that the collapse of Bronze Age civilizations was caused exclusively by prolonged droughts. However, the Indus Valley civilization collapsed during a period of documented excessive rainfall and flooding, with no evidence of drought. Thus, factors other than drought must be capable of causing such civilizational collapses.
The software developer claims that any application with both end-to-end encryption and decentralized servers is immune to data breaches. However, the recent CryptoChat app utilized both end-to-end encryption and decentralized servers, yet it suffered a massive data breach last week. Consequently, combining these two security features does not confer absolute immunity.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct structural mappings are: The Dean's argument matches the Safety Inspector's argument (Left 1 to Right 4). The Mayor's argument matches the Marketing Director's argument (Left 2 to Right 1). The Anthropologist's argument matches the Mechanic's argument (Left 3 to Right 2). The Software Developer's argument matches the Botanist's argument (Left 4 to Right 3).
Each matched pair shares an identical formal refutation structure. They align perfectly in how they use a specific case to attack either a necessary condition, a simple sufficient condition, an exclusive causal relationship, or a compound sufficient condition. This demonstrates mastery of mapping the logical role of a counterexample across different subject matters.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure of Left 1.
The argument refutes a necessary condition ('unless') by demonstrating an instance where the necessary condition is absent, but the sufficient condition still occurs.
Identifying the formal conditional logic (necessary vs. sufficient) is required to find a structural parallel.
2
Identify the matching structure for Left 1 among the right items.
Right 4 uses the exact same 'unless' conditional structure and refutes it by showing a building surviving without the necessary retrofitting.
Parallel reasoning requires identical logical architecture.
3
Analyze the logical structure of Left 2 and Left 4.
Left 2 refutes a simple sufficient condition ('guarantees'). Left 4 refutes a compound sufficient condition ('any application with both X and Y').
Distinguishing between simple and compound conditions ensures precise matching without falling for structural traps.
4
Map Left 2 and Left 4 to their respective counterparts.
Left 2 maps to Right 1 (simple sufficient condition). Left 4 maps to Right 3 (compound sufficient condition: 'exposed to both X and Y').
This confirms the structural mapping based on conditional complexity.
5
Verify the remaining pair (Left 3 and Right 2).
Both Left 3 and Right 2 refute a claim of exclusive causation by presenting an instance where the effect occurs without the purported exclusive cause.
Elimination and verification confirm the final structural parallel.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Method of Reasoning (Counterexamples)
Soru 239Soru →

Match each conditional cybersecurity rule from the corporate protocol manual on the left with its logically equivalent contrapositive on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A contractor receives elevated system privileges only if they pass a comprehensive security audit.
Deploying the emergency containment protocol requires both authorization from the director and at least two active secondary servers.
The internal communications network will remain isolated unless the external threat neutralizes.
An employee's device is flagged for immediate review if it connects to an unsecured network or downloads restricted software.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches pair each original statement with its exact logical contrapositive by reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions, negating both, and properly applying De Morgan's laws to compound rules.
Each correct right-side item represents a logically valid deduction from the corresponding left-side item. The contrapositive is formed by universally reversing the direction of the conditional relationship and negating both sides. When terms include 'AND' or 'OR', De Morgan's laws correctly transform the operators during the negation process.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the 'only if' statement regarding system privileges.
Matches with 'If a contractor does not pass a comprehensive security audit...'
'Only if' indicates a necessary condition (Privileges -> Audit). Reversing and negating yields: If not Audit, then not Privileges.
2
Analyze the compound 'requires both' statement regarding the containment protocol.
Matches with 'If director authorization is missing or there are fewer than two active secondary servers...'
The sufficient condition is deploying the protocol. The necessary condition is a conjunction (Director AND Servers). The contrapositive negates the conjunction into a disjunction (Not Director OR Not Servers).
3
Analyze the 'unless' statement regarding the communications network.
Matches with 'If the internal communications network does not remain isolated...'
'Unless' is translated as 'if not' (If not Neutralized -> Isolated). The contrapositive flips and negates this: If not Isolated -> Neutralized.
4
Analyze the compound 'if' statement regarding employee devices.
Matches with 'If an employee's device is not flagged for immediate review...'
The 'if' introduces a sufficient condition that is a disjunction (Unsecured OR Restricted -> Flagged). The contrapositive negates the disjunction into a conjunction: Not Flagged -> (Not Unsecured AND Not Restricted).

Anahtar Kavram

Forming Contrapositives and Applying De Morgan's Laws
Soru 240Soru →

A financial regulatory board has issued a new set of auditing standards. Below are four rules extracted from these standards. Match each English regulatory rule to its accurate formal logical diagram.

Use the following variables for your diagramming:
AA: The audit is approved
RR: The receipts are verified
LL: The ledger is balanced
DD: Discrepancies are reported

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

No audit is approved without both the receipts being verified and the ledger being balanced.
The ledger is balanced if the audit is approved, unless discrepancies are reported.
The audit being approved requires the receipts to be verified, but the ledger being balanced is sufficient for the audit to be approved.
The audit is approved if, but only if, the ledger is balanced and no discrepancies are reported.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches are:
'No audit is approved without both...' matches with A→(R∧L)A \rightarrow (R \land L)
'The ledger is balanced if the audit is approved, unless...' matches with A→(L∨D)A \rightarrow (L \lor D)
'The audit being approved requires the receipts...' matches with (A→R)∧(L→A)(A \rightarrow R) \land (L \rightarrow A)
'The audit is approved if, but only if...' matches with A↔(L∧¬D)A \leftrightarrow (L \land \neg D)
Each statement successfully maps English syntactic cues to their formal propositional logic equivalents. Mastering the nuances of words like 'unless', 'only if', and 'requires' ensures you avoid illegal reversals or negations in deduction chains.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first statement for necessary conditions.
Translates 'No X without Y' to X -> Y, resulting in A -> (R AND L).
The 'without' modifier establishes that the absence of R and L precludes A, meaning A firmly implies their presence.
2
Deconstruct the 'unless' clause in the second statement.
Translates to ~D -> (A -> L), which is logically equivalent to A -> (L OR D).
'Unless' negates the following condition to form the sufficient trigger. Distributing this across the nested conditional yields an 'OR' relationship on the necessary side.
3
Split the third statement into its 'requires' and 'sufficient' components.
Yields two separate conditionals: A -> R and L -> A.
The sentence explicitly divides the relationship between R being necessary for A, and L being sufficient to guarantee A.
4
Identify the biconditional indicator in the fourth statement.
Translates 'if, but only if' to a two-way arrow, resulting in A <-> (L AND ~D).
Biconditionals indicate that both sides of the relationship are simultaneously necessary and sufficient for each other.

Anahtar Kavram

Accurate formal logical translation of complex English indicators ('unless', 'no X without Y', 'requires', 'sufficient', 'if, but only if').
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
ÖncekiSayfa 12 / 45Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin