Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 281Soru →

The city council is proposing to replace all existing streetlights with new LED models. The council argues that this switch will reduce the city's annual streetlight operating budget. Their sole evidence is that the new LED models consume 40 percent less electricity per hour than the existing streetlights.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the city council's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Maintenance costs, which make up a large portion of the operating budget, are significantly lower for the LED models than for the existing streetlights.

Cevap

Maintenance costs, which make up a large portion of the operating budget, are significantly lower for the LED models than for the existing streetlights.
The correct answer strengthens the argument by addressing a potential gap in the reasoning. The council assumes that the electricity savings will not be outweighed by other expenses. By explicitly stating that maintenance costs (another major part of the budget) will also be lower, this option confirms that the overall operating budget will indeed decrease, making the conclusion much more plausible.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that switching to LED streetlights will reduce the city's annual streetlight operating budget.
Understanding what the argument is trying to prove is the essential first step in evaluating it.
2
Identify the supporting premise.
The premise is that the new LED models consume 40 percent less electricity per hour.
We must know exactly what evidence is being used to support the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap or assumption.
The argument assumes that electricity is the only relevant cost, or that other costs (like maintenance or replacement parts) will not increase enough to offset the electricity savings.
Strengthen questions often require finding an option that addresses an unstated assumption or bridges a gap in the reasoning.
4
Evaluate the options to find the strengthener.
The option stating that maintenance costs are significantly lower for LED models eliminates a potential offset to the savings, directly supporting the conclusion that the overall budget will be reduced.
The correct answer must make the conclusion more likely to be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening an argument by ruling out alternative disadvantages
Soru 282Soru →

According to classical utilitarian ethics, an action is morally praiseworthy only if it involves a significant personal sacrifice on the part of the actor. Thus, Mayor Thompson's recent decision to donate his entire annual salary to the local hospital cannot be considered morally praiseworthy. Even though the hospital desperately needs the funds, this highly publicized donation will substantially increase the mayor's chances of winning the fiercely contested upcoming election.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: No action that substantially increases an actor's chances of winning an election involves a significant personal sacrifice.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that no action substantially increasing an actor's chances of winning an election involves a significant personal sacrifice.
The argument relies on conditional logic. Premise 1 states: Morally Praiseworthy -> Significant Personal Sacrifice. The contrapositive is: No Significant Personal Sacrifice -> Not Morally Praiseworthy. The author concludes that the mayor's donation is not morally praiseworthy based on the premise that it increases his election chances. To logically guarantee this conclusion, we must link the evidence to the contrapositive's sufficient condition. The correct answer provides this exact link: if an action increases election chances, it involves no significant personal sacrifice. This completes the chain: Increases Election Chances -> No Significant Personal Sacrifice -> Not Morally Praiseworthy.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion.
Mayor Thompson's donation is not morally praiseworthy.
This is the core claim the author is trying to prove, signaled by the word 'Thus'.
2
Deconstruct the premises and their formal logic.
Premise 1: Morally Praiseworthy -> Significant Personal Sacrifice. Premise 2: Thompson's Donation -> Increases Election Chances.
Mapping the conditional logic is required to identify the exact gap in the argument.
3
Determine the required missing link (Sufficient Assumption).
To prove the donation is NOT morally praiseworthy, we must prove it lacks significant personal sacrifice (the contrapositive of Premise 1). We know the donation increases election chances. Therefore, we must assume: Increases Election Chances -> NO Significant Personal Sacrifice.
A sufficient assumption must perfectly bridge the gap between the evidence (election chances) and the requirement to trigger the conclusion (no sacrifice).

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions
Soru 283Soru →

A specific species of crop-destroying beetle in Region X recently developed resistance to the primary pesticide used to control its numbers. In response, farmers introduced a new species of wasp that preys exclusively on these beetles. Since the introduction of the wasps, the beetle population in Region X has declined by 40 percent. Therefore, the introduction of the wasp must be responsible for the recent decline in the beetle population.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: In neighboring Region Y, where the pesticide-resistant beetles are present but the wasps were not introduced, the beetle population has not declined.

Cevap

The statement showing that in neighboring Region Y, where wasps were not introduced, the beetle population did not decline.
The argument concludes that the introduction of wasps caused the decline in the beetle population, basing this claim entirely on the fact that the decline happened after the wasps were introduced. This is a classic causal argument vulnerable to the possibility of coincidence or alternative causes. The correct answer strengthens the argument by providing a comparative control group (Region Y). By establishing that the beetle population did not decline in a similar region where the wasps were not introduced, it significantly increases the probability that the wasps were indeed the cause of the decline in Region X.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the introduction of the wasp is responsible for the recent decline in the beetle population.
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to know what evidence would strengthen it.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premises are that wasps were introduced and subsequently the beetle population declined by 40 percent.
Isolating the provided evidence highlights how the author arrived at the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap or flaw in the reasoning.
The argument assumes a causal relationship based solely on a chronological correlation. It fails to rule out other potential causes for the decline.
Recognizing the vulnerability of causal arguments dictates the strategy for strengthening them.
4
Evaluate the options to find one that supports the causal relationship.
The option describing Region Y acts as a control group, demonstrating that where the cause (wasps) is absent, the effect (beetle decline) is also absent.
Showing a 'cause-without-effect control' directly bolsters the likelihood that the initial correlation was indeed causal.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening causal arguments by ruling out alternative explanations or demonstrating a cause-without-effect control scenario.
Soru 284Soru →

Effective urban planning requires a deep understanding of historical zoning laws. Yet, any urban planner whose education was restricted entirely to contemporary civil engineering will lack a deep understanding of historical zoning laws. Therefore, city governments should never employ urban planners whose education was restricted entirely to contemporary civil engineering.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: City governments should employ only those urban planners who are capable of effective urban planning.

Cevap

The assumption that city governments should employ only those urban planners who are capable of effective urban planning.
The correct answer bridges the gap between the facts provided about planners (their capabilities) and the prescriptive conclusion about what the city should do (hiring practices). By stating that city governments should employ ONLY those capable of effective planning, it creates the conditional statement: Employed → Capable of Effective Planning. Since the premises dictate that planners with the restricted education are not capable of effective planning, this assumption mathematically forces the conclusion that they must not be employed.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the premises into formal logical statements.
Premise 1: Effective Urban Planning (EUP) → Deep Understanding of Historical Zoning Laws (DUHZL). Premise 2: Education Restricted to Contemporary Civil Engineering (ERCE) → ~DUHZL.
Mapping the conditional logic makes the logical gap in the argument visible.
2
Determine the inferences that can be drawn from combining the premises.
By linking Premise 2 to the contrapositive of Premise 1 (~DUHZL → ~EUP), we deduce: ERCE → ~EUP.
This establishes exactly what we know about the urban planners mentioned in the conclusion.
3
Identify the conclusion and pinpoint the logical gap.
Conclusion: City Government Employs (CGE) → ~ERCE. The gap is between a planner's inability to engage in effective urban planning (~EUP) and the city's hiring practices (CGE).
A sufficient assumption must introduce a new premise that flawlessly connects the established facts to the conclusion.
4
Formulate the required assumption to bridge the gap.
We need: CGE → EUP. If the city only hires those capable of effective urban planning, and we know ERCE planners are NOT capable, then the city will not hire ERCE planners.
This perfectly completes the deductive chain: CGE → EUP → DUHZL → ~ERCE.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions through Conditional Logic Chaining
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 285Soru →

Ecologist: The newly analyzed deep-sea hydrothermal vent network—a complex, interconnected biosphere comprising thousands of distinct organisms—exhibits remarkable metabolic stability even when localized volcanic activity severely disrupts chemical nutrient flows. Consequently, the newly discovered Thermotoga profunda bacterium, which acts as a primary energy producer within this network, must individually maintain extreme metabolic stability during severe fluctuations in chemical nutrient availability.

The ecologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: infers that a particular component of a biological system possesses a certain trait solely because the biological system as a whole possesses that trait

Cevap

The option stating that the argument infers a component possesses a certain trait solely because the system as a whole possesses it.
The correct answer accurately diagnoses the Error of Division. The ecologist observes that the macro-system (the vent network) has a specific characteristic (metabolic stability) and illogically assumes that a micro-component of that system (the T. profunda bacterium) must also possess that exact same characteristic. In reality, an ecosystem might maintain overall stability precisely because individual, highly sensitive components die off and are rapidly replaced, meaning the specific part is not stable at all.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into its core premise and conclusion.
Premise: The deep-sea vent network (the whole) has metabolic stability. Conclusion: The T. profunda bacterium (a part) has metabolic stability.
Identifying the structural relationship between the evidence and the claim is essential for spotting logical flaws.
2
Identify the structural gap in the reasoning.
The author moves directly from an observation about a macroscopic entity to a claim about a microscopic constituent of that entity.
Recognizing that the argument attributes a property of a group to an individual member reveals the specific fallacy.
3
Name the specific logical fallacy committed.
The argument commits the Error of Division (Part-to-Whole Fallacy).
A system as a whole can be highly stable precisely because its individual parts are unstable, rapidly dying, and being replaced. What is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the parts.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that abstractly describes the Error of Division.
The correct option abstractly describes inferring a component possesses a trait because the biological system possesses it.
This matches the definition of the division flaw observed in step 3.

Anahtar Kavram

Error of Division (Whole-to-Part Fallacy)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 286Soru →

After the local bakery switched to using organic flour, the total number of pastries it sold per week increased by 25 percent. The bakery owner concluded that the switch to organic flour caused this increase in pastry sales.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the bakery owner's argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The recent increase in pastry sales was not primarily caused by the closure of a competing bakery across the street.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the increase in sales was not caused by the closure of a competing bakery.
The argument concludes that the switch to organic flour caused the increase in pastry sales, based solely on the evidence that the increase occurred after the switch. To make this causal claim, the author must assume that other potential causes are not responsible for the increase. The correct answer rules out a plausible alternate explanation (the closure of a competitor), thereby defending the causal claim. If we apply the Negation Technique and assume the opposite—that the increase in sales WAS caused by the competitor's closure—the argument's conclusion falls apart.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'the switch to organic flour caused this increase in pastry sales.'
Understanding the main point is required to evaluate what the argument relies upon.
2
Identify the premise supporting the conclusion.
The premise is: 'After the bakery switched... sales increased by 25 percent.'
This establishes the evidence, which is entirely based on two events occurring in sequence.
3
Determine the gap in the reasoning (the assumption).
The author assumes that because the flour switch happened right before the sales increase, it must be the cause. This assumes no other factors caused the increase.
Causal arguments based on chronological sequence inherently assume that alternate explanations are not responsible for the effect.
4
Evaluate the answer choices using the Negation Technique.
Negating the correct option results in: 'The increase in sales WAS primarily caused by the closure of a competing bakery.' This completely destroys the conclusion that the organic flour was the cause.
If negating an answer choice destroys the argument, that choice is a logically necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Soru 287Soru →

Excavations at the ancient Koris site have uncovered intricate bone flutes dating back approximately 40,000 years. The only hominid remains found at the Koris site from this time period belong to Neanderthals. Based on this evidence, archaeologists conclude that Neanderthals must have possessed the cognitive capacity to create complex musical instruments.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the archaeologists' argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The bone flutes were not left at the Koris site by a different hominid species whose remains have not been discovered there.

Cevap

The correct assumption is that the bone flutes were not left at the Koris site by a different hominid species whose remains have not been discovered there.
The argument concludes that Neanderthals possessed the cognitive capacity to create complex musical instruments based solely on the co-occurrence of their remains and the bone flutes at the Koris site. This reasoning depends on ruling out alternative sources for the flutes. By applying the Negation Test, if we assume the opposite of the correct answer—that the flutes WERE left at the site by a different hominid species whose remains have not been discovered—the argument falls apart completely. The evidence would no longer point to Neanderthals as the creators. Therefore, it is strictly necessary for the argument to assume that another species did not leave the flutes there.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core components of the argument.
Premise: Bone flutes and Neanderthal remains were found together at the 40,000-year-old Koris site. Conclusion: Neanderthals possessed the cognitive capacity to create complex musical instruments.
Understanding the exact relationship between the premises and the conclusion is required to spot the logical gap.
2
Identify the logical gap in the reasoning.
The argument assumes a causal and definitive link between the artifacts and the hominid remains simply because they were found at the same site.
Just because Neanderthal remains were the only ones found does not guarantee they were the only hominids present or the ones who made the flutes.
3
Anticipate what is necessary to bridge or defend this gap.
A necessary assumption must rule out the possibility that another group brought or made the flutes at the site without leaving skeletal evidence.
This is a 'defender' assumption that blocks an alternate explanation that would destroy the conclusion.
4
Apply the Negation Test to evaluate the options.
Negating the correct answer ('The bone flutes WERE left by a different species...') completely invalidates the conclusion that Neanderthals made them.
The Negation Test is the definitive proof of a necessary assumption; if its negation destroys the argument, the assumption is strictly required.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Negation Test and Defender Assumptions)
Soru 288Soru →

In a recent decade-long study of 50 agricultural regions, researchers found that the regions that had adopted a newly developed soil conservation technique experienced a significantly lower rate of topsoil erosion than the regions that continued to rely on traditional methods. Based on this data, the researchers concluded that the adoption of the new technique was responsible for the disparity in erosion rates between the two groups.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the researchers' argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The agricultural regions that adopted the new technique did not experience significantly less severe rainfall—a primary driver of erosion—than the regions using traditional methods over the past decade.

Cevap

The assumption that the regions adopting the new technique did not also experience significantly less severe rainfall, which rules out an alternate cause for the lower erosion.
This option provides a necessary 'defender' assumption by ruling out a critical alternate explanation. The conclusion claims a causal relationship based on a correlation between the new technique and lower erosion. However, if the regions with the new technique also happened to experience significantly less severe rainfall, then this weather discrepancy—rather than the farming technique—could be the actual cause of the lower erosion rates. By stating this confounding variable was not present, the option defends the argument's causal claim. Negating this option destroys the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core conclusion.
The adoption of the new soil conservation technique was responsible for the disparity in erosion rates.
This is the causal claim the researchers make based on their observations.
2
Identify the argument's premise.
Regions using the new technique had significantly lower erosion rates than regions using traditional methods.
This is the correlational evidence provided to support the conclusion.
3
Analyze the logical gap (Correlation to Causation).
The argument assumes that because the new technique and lower erosion occurred together, the technique caused the lower erosion. It fails to consider alternate explanations for why those specific regions might have had less erosion.
To prove a causal claim, one must rule out third-variable confounders (like weather, geography, or other practices) that could have independently caused the effect.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the options.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The regions that adopted the new technique DID experience significantly less severe rainfall... than the regions using traditional methods.'
If this negated statement is true, the less severe rainfall (a known driver of erosion) easily explains the lower erosion rates, entirely undermining the claim that the new technique was responsible. Therefore, the original statement is a logically necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Soru 289Soru →

Over the past decade, the municipality of Oakhaven implemented a 'Green Streets' initiative, significantly increasing the number of trees and public parks in its downtown district. During this same ten-year period, the incidence of stress-related illnesses reported by downtown residents decreased by 30 percent. Because clinical studies have consistently demonstrated that exposure to urban green spaces lowers cortisol levels, city officials conclude that Oakhaven's newly added green spaces directly caused the local reduction in stress-related illnesses.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the city officials' argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The 'Green Streets' initiative did not lead to increases in the cost of living that disproportionately drove residents highly susceptible to stress-related illnesses out of the downtown district.

Cevap

The argument fundamentally relies on the assumption that the 'Green Streets' initiative did not lead to increases in the cost of living that disproportionately drove residents highly susceptible to stress-related illnesses out of the downtown district.
The author concludes that the new green spaces directly caused the 30 percent reduction in stress-related illnesses based on a correlation in time. This causal claim requires assuming that there isn't an alternative explanation for the drop in the illness rate among downtown residents. The correct answer acts as a Defender assumption by ruling out a demographic shift (selection bias). If we apply the Negation Technique and assume the opposite—that the initiative DID cause living costs to rise, thereby driving highly susceptible residents out—then the district's illness rate would drop simply because the sickest people relocated. This alternative explanation destroys the conclusion that the green spaces themselves were the medical cause of the statistical change. Therefore, the argument absolutely depends on assuming this demographic shift did not happen.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to separate the premises from the main conclusion.
Premises: Green spaces increased, illness incidence decreased by 30%, clinical studies show green spaces lower cortisol. Conclusion: Green spaces directly caused the reduction.
Identifying the exact causal claim is necessary to pinpoint logical vulnerabilities.
2
Identify the core logical flaw in the argument's reasoning.
The argument assumes causation based on a temporal correlation and ignores population dynamics, assuming the 'downtown residents' demographic remained stable.
An epidemiological drop in incidence can occur either through actual healing or through demographic shifts (selection bias).
3
Prephrase the type of assumption required to defend the argument.
The argument requires a 'Defender' assumption that rules out potential alternative causes for the statistical drop, such as a changing population.
Because the conclusion makes a definitive causal claim, it inherently assumes that other confounding variables did not produce the effect.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to evaluate the options.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The initiative DID lead to increases in living costs that disproportionately drove highly susceptible residents out.' This alternate cause perfectly explains the 30% drop, destroying the argument.
The Negation Technique provides a mathematical proof for necessary assumption questions. If the negated statement ruins the conclusion, the original statement is strictly required.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 290Soru →

Match each logical argument (left) with the piece of evidence (right) that most strengthens its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Since the city launched its new recycling initiative, the tonnage of waste sent to the municipal landfill has decreased by 20%. The mayor concludes that the recycling initiative successfully diverted waste.
A study found that adults who regularly consume dark chocolate have a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease. Researchers hypothesize that dark chocolate protects against cardiovascular disease.
The local cafe saw a revenue increase after offering free Wi-Fi. To combat declining sales, the bookstore next door should also offer free Wi-Fi.
SkyHigh Airlines plans to remove one row of seats from its planes to increase legroom, and charge a 15% higher ticket price for the remaining seats to improve overall profit margins.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The recycling argument matches with the evidence about overall trash tonnage. The dark chocolate argument matches with the evidence about other heart-healthy habits. The bookstore argument matches with the evidence about customer internet motivation. The airline argument matches with the evidence about revenue offsetting seat losses.
Each correct pairing successfully addresses the primary logical vulnerability inherent in its respective argument. The recycling evidence eliminates an alternate cause; the chocolate evidence eliminates a confounding variable; the bookstore evidence confirms a relevant similarity for an analogy; and the airline evidence validates a core cost-benefit assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Recycling Argument
Identify the causal claim: The recycling program caused the 20% drop in landfill waste. The gap: What if residents simply produced less trash overall? The evidence stating that overall trash tonnage did not decrease resolves this vulnerability.
Ruling out alternative causes is a primary method for strengthening causal arguments.
2
Analyze the Dark Chocolate Argument
Identify the correlation-to-causation claim. The gap: People who eat dark chocolate might have healthier diets or exercise more, causing the lower disease rate. The evidence eliminating this confounding variable strengthens the claim.
Eliminating a third variable that could cause both the observed phenomenon and the effect strengthens the hypothesized causal link.
3
Analyze the Bookstore Argument
Identify the argument by analogy: What worked for the cafe will work for the bookstore. The gap: Are their customers similarly motivated by Wi-Fi? The evidence confirming they are highly motivated by internet access strengthens the analogy.
Arguments by analogy are strengthened by showing that the two cases share the specific traits relevant to the conclusion.
4
Analyze the Airline Argument
Identify the plan's goal: Improve profit margins. The gap: Will the 15% ticket price premium cover the revenue lost from the removed row of seats? The evidence explicitly confirming this offsets the loss strengthens the plan.
Business plans and strategies are strengthened by evidence showing that their expected financial benefits outweigh their inherent costs.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening an argument requires identifying its core logical gap or assumption, and selecting evidence that bridges that gap, rules out alternative explanations, or validates the premise.
Soru 291Soru →

A recent study found that employees who voluntarily take frequent short breaks during the workday are more productive overall than employees who do not take such breaks. Based on this study, the human resources director concludes that if the company mandates frequent short breaks for all of its employees, the company's overall productivity will increase.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the director's argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The productivity benefits of taking frequent short breaks do not depend entirely on the employees choosing to take those breaks voluntarily.

Cevap

The productivity benefits of taking frequent short breaks do not depend entirely on the employees choosing to take those breaks voluntarily.
The argument assumes that the positive effects of the breaks will still occur even if the breaks are not voluntary. If we apply the Negation Test and assume the opposite—that the productivity benefits depend entirely on the breaks being voluntary—then the director's plan to mandate them would not increase productivity. Because negating this statement destroys the argument, it is a logically necessary assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core components: the premise and the conclusion.
Premise: Employees who voluntarily take short breaks are more productive. Conclusion: Mandating short breaks for all employees will increase overall productivity.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step to finding logical gaps.
2
Identify the logical gap or shift in language between the premise and the conclusion.
The premise is about 'voluntarily' taking breaks, while the conclusion shifts to the company 'mandating' (forcing) breaks.
Necessary assumptions often bridge a gap between the exact wording in the premises and the new concepts introduced in the conclusion.
3
Formulate a necessary assumption that defends the argument from this gap.
The argument assumes that forcing people to take breaks will still yield the same positive results as when people choose to take them on their own.
If the benefit only comes from the voluntary nature of the break, then a mandate would fail.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the correct answer candidate.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The productivity benefits DO depend entirely on the employees choosing to take those breaks voluntarily.' This negated statement destroys the director's conclusion.
The Negation Test is the definitive method for verifying a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defender)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 292Soru →

Public Health Official: We should adopt the proposed dietary guidelines limiting the intake of synthetic preservatives. Dr. Aris Thorne, a globally recognized epidemiologist who has extensively studied the spread of viral pathogens in urban populations, has argued that synthetic preservatives in our food supply compromise the immune system. When a researcher of Dr. Thorne's caliber issues a warning about public health, it is imperative that policymakers heed that advice and update our nutritional standards.

The public health official's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: appeals to the judgment of an expert whose specialized field of study is not directly relevant to the specific claim being advanced

Cevap

The correct answer accurately identifies that the argument appeals to the judgment of an expert whose specialized field of study is not directly relevant to the specific claim being advanced.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the public health official bases the entire conclusion on the opinion of Dr. Thorne. However, Dr. Thorne's expertise is in viral pathogens, whereas the conclusion is about the dietary impact of synthetic food preservatives. This is a classic illegitimate appeal to authority, as the expert's highly specialized field is irrelevant to the specific claim being made.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that policymakers should adopt dietary guidelines limiting the intake of synthetic preservatives.
Locating the main conclusion is the necessary first step in evaluating the logical structure of any argument.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
The sole supporting premise is that Dr. Thorne, a renowned epidemiologist specializing in viral pathogens, warns that these preservatives compromise the immune system.
Understanding the supporting evidence reveals exactly how the author attempts to justify their conclusion.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the premises and the conclusion to find the logical gap.
The argument relies completely on Dr. Thorne's expertise. However, his expertise is in epidemiology and viral pathogens, which is not directly relevant to the toxicological or nutritional effects of synthetic food additives.
Identifying the disconnect between the evidence (an expert in viruses) and the conclusion (dietary policy on food additives) exposes the core logical vulnerability.
4
Select the option that accurately describes this specific flaw.
The correct choice identifies the illegitimate appeal to authority.
This directly matches the flaw demonstrated in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
Soru 293Soru →

Consider the following argument:

City Council Member: Our city's public transit system is currently operating at a significant financial deficit. To eliminate this deficit, the transit authority has proposed a 20 percent increase in all bus and subway fares. However, our studies indicate that this fare increase will cause a 25 percent drop in total ridership as commuters switch to other modes of transportation. Therefore, implementing the fare increase will actually worsen the transit system's financial deficit rather than eliminate it.

The argument above necessarily assumes that the transit system's operating costs will not decrease sufficiently to offset the lost revenue when ridership drops by 25 percent.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is a strictly necessary assumption because the argument equates a loss in revenue with an increased deficit. This jump in logic requires the author to assume that operating costs will not drop enough to offset the lost revenue. If we negate the assumption and imagine that costs DO drop significantly alongside ridership, the conclusion fails.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
The conclusion is: 'implementing the fare increase will actually worsen the transit system's financial deficit rather than eliminate it.'
Isolating the conclusion is the critical first step in evaluating any Logical Reasoning argument.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premises are: Fares will increase by 20%, but ridership will drop by 25%.
Understanding the evidence provided helps identify the logical gap in the author's reasoning.
3
Analyze the conceptual gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises prove that total revenue will decrease. However, the conclusion makes a claim about a 'financial deficit', which is determined by both revenue and operating costs.
Many logical flaws rely on shifting terms—in this case, treating a loss in revenue as identical to an increase in deficit.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the provided assumption statement.
Negated statement: 'The transit system's operating costs WILL decrease sufficiently to offset the lost revenue.' If this negated statement were true, the deficit would not worsen, which directly destroys the author's conclusion.
The Negation Test definitively proves whether an assumption is strictly required for the argument to survive.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumptions and the Negation Test
Soru 294Soru →

A recent workplace study found that employees who regularly use standing desks report 30 percent fewer instances of lower back pain than employees who use traditional sitting desks. Based on this study, a workplace consultant concluded that using a standing desk instead of a sitting desk reduces the risk of developing lower back pain.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the consultant's argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Employees who chose to use standing desks did not already have a significantly lower incidence of lower back pain before they began using standing desks.

Cevap

The assumption that employees using standing desks did not already have a lower incidence of back pain before using them.
The argument observes a correlation between standing desks and reduced back pain, then concludes that the desks caused the reduction. For this causal claim to be true, it is logically necessary to assume that the lower incidence of back pain in the standing desk group wasn't already present before they started using the desks. If they were already healthier before the intervention, that pre-existing condition—rather than the desk—would explain the study's results. By ruling out this alternate explanation, this choice successfully defends the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise: Standing desk users report 30% less back pain than sitting desk users. Conclusion: Using a standing desk reduces the risk of back pain.
Deconstructing the argument structure is the first step in evaluating any LSAT Logical Reasoning question.
2
Determine the gap in the reasoning.
The argument assumes that a correlation between desk type and back pain implies that the desk type caused the reduction in back pain.
Identifying the logical gap reveals what the argument is taking for granted without explicitly stating it.
3
Anticipate the type of necessary assumption required.
Because this is a causal argument based on an observational study, a necessary assumption must defend the causal claim by ruling out an alternate cause, such as a pre-existing baseline disparity.
Knowing that causal conclusions are vulnerable to alternate explanations helps identify the correct defender assumption.
4
Apply the negation test to the correct option.
Negating the correct option yields: 'Employees who chose standing desks DID already have a lower incidence of back pain.' This provides an alternate cause for the study's results, destroying the argument.
The negation test is the definitive method to confirm if an assumption is truly logically necessary for the conclusion to hold.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Soru 295Soru →

Historian: Academic consensus holds that the Valerian Empire’s collapse was primarily driven by economic instability. This view is demonstrably false. The celebrated poet Callimachus, who lived during the empire's final days, wrote extensively that the empire crumbled solely because of the moral decay of its ruling class. Furthermore, when polled recently, an overwhelming majority of citizens identified political corruption, not economics, as the true cause of the empire's fall. Therefore, we must conclude that the Valerian Empire fell due to political and moral failure, not economic factors.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the historian's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It bases a historical conclusion on the testimony of a source lacking specialized expertise and on the widespread beliefs of non-experts.

Cevap

The option stating that it bases a historical conclusion on the testimony of a source lacking specialized expertise and on the widespread beliefs of non-experts.
The correct answer accurately identifies the two distinct appeal fallacies committed in the stimulus. First, the historian appeals to the authority of Callimachus, a poet. While he lived through the era, a poet inherently lacks the specialized historical and macroeconomic expertise required to definitively determine the structural causes of an empire's collapse (Appeal to Unqualified Authority). Second, the historian relies on a modern public opinion poll to establish a historical fact, wrongly equating popular belief with empirical truth (Appeal to Majority/Popular Opinion).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the historian's argument to identify the premises and the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that the Valerian Empire fell due to political and moral failure. The premises supporting this are the writings of Callimachus (a poet) and a recent poll of citizens.
Isolating the core argument is necessary to evaluate the logical relationship between the evidence provided and the final claim.
2
Evaluate the logical validity of the premises used to support the causal conclusion.
The argument uses a poet to refute an established macroeconomic historical consensus, and it uses a modern public opinion poll to establish an objective historical fact.
Identifying the nature of the evidence reveals whether the author is relying on sound reasoning or employing logical fallacies.
3
Categorize the specific logical flaws present in the use of this evidence.
Relying on a poet for historical causation is an Appeal to Unqualified Authority. Relying on a public poll for factual truth is an Appeal to Majority (Ad Populum).
Recognizing the exact flaw types allows for precise matching with the abstract descriptions in the answer choices.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that accurately describes the identified appeal fallacies.
The correct choice explicitly describes basing a conclusion on a source lacking specialized expertise (the poet) and the widespread beliefs of non-experts (the polled citizens).
The correct answer on a Flaw question must accurately describe what actually happens in the stimulus and represent a genuine logical error.

Anahtar Kavram

Appeal Fallacies (Authority and Majority)
Soru 296Soru →

Any system that qualifies as a moral agent must possess genuine self-awareness. Furthermore, an artificial system can be deemed a moral agent only if it possesses the capacity to form intentions independently of its original programming parameters. Contemporary generative models, despite their sophisticated heuristic learning capabilities, cannot form intentions independently of their original programming parameters. Therefore, imposing legal liability on contemporary generative models for defamatory content they produce is fundamentally unjust.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is fundamentally unjust to impose legal liability for defamatory content on any entity that does not qualify as a moral agent.

Cevap

The statement that it is fundamentally unjust to impose legal liability for defamatory content on any entity that does not qualify as a moral agent.
The argument requires a logical bridge to completely justify its conclusion. We know from the premises that generative models cannot form independent intentions, and therefore they do not qualify as moral agents. However, the conclusion makes a bold claim about it being 'fundamentally unjust' to impose legal liability on them. The correct option perfectly bridges this gap: if an entity does not qualify as a moral agent, then imposing legal liability on it is fundamentally unjust. This connects our deduced premise directly to the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the formal logic of the premises.
Premise 1: Moral Agent -> Genuine Self-Awareness. Premise 2: Moral Agent -> Form Independent Intentions. Premise 3: Generative Models -> NOT Form Independent Intentions.
Deconstructing the argument into conditional statements is necessary to track the deductive chain.
2
Draw inferences from the premises.
By combining Premise 2 and Premise 3, we can deduce via contrapositive (NOT Form Independent Intentions -> NOT Moral Agent) that Generative Models -> NOT Moral Agent.
This establishes the maximum logically sound conclusion about Generative Models based on the provided evidence.
3
Identify the conclusion and the logical gap.
Conclusion: Generative Models -> Unjust to Impose Legal Liability. The gap is between 'NOT Moral Agent' and 'Unjust to Impose Legal Liability'.
A sufficient assumption must completely bridge the gap between the deduced premises and the final conclusion.
4
Formulate the required sufficient assumption.
NOT Moral Agent -> Unjust to Impose Legal Liability. (If an entity is not a moral agent, then imposing legal liability on it is fundamentally unjust).
Adding this conditional statement to our deduction guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions in Formal Logic Chains
Soru 297Soru →

Sociologist: During the late twentieth century, time-saving domestic technologies, such as automated dishwashers, were widely adopted by households. Paradoxically, surveys from that era indicate that adults in these households reported feeling significantly more pressed for time than adults had in preceding decades. It must be the case that the time saved by these technologies was quickly absorbed by new professional and social obligations, leaving these individuals with less actual free time than people previously possessed.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the sociologist's argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The adults surveyed would not have reported feeling significantly more pressed for time if their actual free time was equal to or greater than that of adults in preceding decades.

Cevap

The assumption that links the subjective feeling of being pressed for time to an actual, objective decrease in free time.
The argument makes a logical leap from a subjective premise (respondents 'reported feeling' more pressed for time) to an objective conclusion (they had 'less actual free time'). For this argument to function, the author must assume that the subjective feeling is a valid indicator of the objective reality in this context. By establishing that the adults would not have felt this way if their free time had remained the same or increased, the correct answer bridges this gap. When negated, it severs the evidentiary link between the premise and conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that adults in the late twentieth century were left with less actual free time than people previously possessed.
Locating the main conclusion is always the first step in analyzing any LSAT Logical Reasoning argument.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premise 1: Time-saving technologies were widely adopted. Premise 2: Surveys showed these adults reported feeling significantly more pressed for time than adults in preceding decades.
Understanding the evidence provided highlights the logical leap the author makes to reach the conclusion.
3
Spot the logical gap or shift in language between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises discuss a subjective perception ('feeling significantly more pressed for time'), while the conclusion makes a claim about objective reality ('less actual free time').
Necessary assumptions often bridge the gap between new concepts introduced in the conclusion and the evidence in the premises.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to the correct option to verify it is strictly necessary.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The adults WOULD have reported feeling more pressed for time even if they had equal or more actual free time.' This destroys the argument.
If an assumption is truly logically necessary, its negation must completely invalidate the argument's reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions using the Negation Technique
Soru 298Soru →

A political campaign spokesperson made several distinct arguments to persuade voters to support the 'Green Canopy' urban redevelopment initiative.

Which of the following statements made by the spokesperson contain an illegitimate logical appeal to emotion, popular opinion, or unqualified authority? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If we reject this initiative, our beloved city's parks will turn into dangerous, barren wastelands, depriving our vulnerable children of the joy of nature.; We must adopt this initiative because a recent newspaper poll shows that 85 percent of the city's residents believe it is the right path forward.; Dr. Elena Rostova, a globally recognized and award-winning cardiovascular surgeon, strongly endorses the initiative's structural engineering plans.

Cevap

The statements containing illegitimate appeals are: the statement warning of barren wastelands and depriving children (appeal to emotion), the statement citing an 85 percent newspaper poll (appeal to majority), and the statement citing a cardiovascular surgeon's endorsement of engineering plans (appeal to unqualified authority).
Three of the statements successfully demonstrate the specific appeal fallacies requested. The statement warning about 'barren wastelands' and 'vulnerable children' relies on fear and pity instead of evidence, which is an appeal to emotion. The statement arguing for the initiative based on an 85 percent approval poll incorrectly substitutes popular opinion for logical merit, committing an appeal to majority. Finally, the statement citing a cardiovascular surgeon's endorsement of structural engineering plans relies on the opinion of an expert who has no established relevance to the field in question, committing an appeal to unqualified authority.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the question stem to identify the specific task.
The task is to identify statements that commit one of three specific logical flaws: appeal to emotion, appeal to popular opinion (majority), or appeal to unqualified authority.
Understanding the exact constraints of the prompt ensures we do not select statements that contain other, unrelated types of logical flaws.
2
Evaluate the statement regarding 'dangerous, barren wastelands' and 'vulnerable children'.
This statement substitutes logical evidence for inflammatory and fear-inducing language.
This matches the definition of an appeal to emotion.
3
Evaluate the statement regarding the 85 percent newspaper poll.
This statement concludes the initiative is the 'right path forward' purely because a large majority supports it.
This matches the definition of an appeal to popular opinion (ad populum).
4
Evaluate the statement regarding the cardiovascular surgeon's endorsement.
This statement uses a medical expert to validate structural engineering plans.
Because the expert's credentials are in a completely unrelated field, this constitutes an appeal to unqualified authority.
5
Evaluate the remaining statements about property values and individual component affordability.
The property value statement confuses correlation with causation, and the affordability statement incorrectly infers a whole from its parts.
While both statements contain logical flaws, neither commits an appeal to emotion, majority, or authority, making them incorrect answers.

Anahtar Kavram

Appeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)
Soru 299Soru →

Consider the following argument:

The management of the City Tribune newspaper wants to increase the publication's overall profit margin. To achieve this, they plan to switch from their current high-quality printing paper to a significantly cheaper, lower-quality paper. By reducing these production costs, the management concludes that the newspaper's overall profit margin will undoubtedly increase.

Statement: For the management's conclusion to be logically drawn, the argument necessarily assumes that switching to the lower-quality paper will not cause a decrease in readership and sales severe enough to cancel out the financial savings gained from using the cheaper paper.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

The statement is true because it correctly identifies a defensive assumption required by the argument, verified by the Negation Test.
The statement is true. The argument claims that cutting costs will lead to higher profits, completely ignoring the potential negative effects on revenue caused by a drop in product quality. For the conclusion to hold, the argument must assume that this potential negative effect (decreased sales) will not be so severe that it wipes out the cost savings.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion and primary premise.
Conclusion: The newspaper's overall profit margin will undoubtedly increase. Premise: They will reduce production costs by switching to a cheaper, lower-quality paper.
Understanding the core argument structure is required to evaluate what unstated ideas bridge the gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
2
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed assumption statement.
The negated assumption is: 'Switching to the lower-quality paper WILL cause a decrease in readership and sales severe enough to cancel out the financial savings.'
The Negation Test is the most reliable method for proving if an assumption is strictly necessary. If negating the assumption invalidates the conclusion, the assumption is necessary.
3
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the original conclusion.
If the newspaper loses so much revenue from canceled subscriptions that it erases the money saved on paper, their profit margin will not increase. The conclusion is destroyed.
Because the negated assumption makes the conclusion impossible, the original statement is indeed a logically necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (The Negation Test / Defender Strategy)
Soru 300Soru →

In logical reasoning, arguments can be flawed in various ways. An argument commits an appeal fallacy when it relies on an illegitimate appeal to authority, emotion, or majority opinion rather than on relevant logical evidence.

Which of the following statements commit an illegitimate appeal to authority, emotion, or majority? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: This complex software algorithm is flawless. A famous Hollywood actor who reviewed it said it is the best code ever written.; You must find the defendant innocent of all charges. Just think of how devastated his poor children will be if he is sent to prison!; This specific brand of toothpaste must be the most effective at preventing cavities, because over eighty percent of surveyed consumers purchase it.

Cevap

The statements involving the Hollywood actor reviewing code, the emotional plea about the defendant's children, and the toothpaste popularity claim all contain illegitimate appeal fallacies.
The correct options demonstrate the three core types of appeal fallacies: relying on an unqualified expert (the actor), attempting to elicit pity instead of providing evidence (the children), and assuming popularity equates to factual truth (the toothpaste survey).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first statement regarding the software algorithm.
The statement relies on the opinion of a Hollywood actor for a conclusion about software engineering.
This identifies an illegitimate appeal to authority, as the actor lacks relevant expertise.
2
Analyze the second statement regarding the defendant.
The statement uses the potential sadness of the defendant's children as a reason for innocence.
This identifies an illegitimate appeal to emotion, as it avoids presenting factual evidence of innocence.
3
Analyze the third statement regarding the toothpaste.
The statement concludes the toothpaste is most effective based solely on the fact that 80 percent of consumers buy it.
This identifies an illegitimate appeal to majority opinion, as popularity does not prove scientific effectiveness.
4
Analyze the remaining statements.
The statement about the mayor confuses correlation with causation, and the statement about the laptop commits a fallacy of composition.
These are logical flaws, but they are not appeal fallacies.

Anahtar Kavram

Appeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)
ÖncekiSayfa 15 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin