Examkin

Tüm alıştırma soruları

899 soru

Tüm türler3,960Çoktan seçmeli2,053Çoklu seçim382Doğru / Yanlış424Eşleştirme899Sıralama123Boşluk doldurma38Kısa cevap41
Soru 301Soru →

Match each argument with the sufficient assumption that logically guarantees its main conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Only entities that synthesize proteins can be classified as alive. Prions consist solely of misfolded proteins and lack the cellular machinery to synthesize anything. Therefore, prions are incapable of biological evolution.
Expanding the public transit system requires significant increases in municipal funding. The upcoming referendum, if passed, will strictly cap property taxes. Consequently, if the referendum passes, the public transit system will not be expanded.
A valid legal contract requires mutual consideration. The agreement between the corporation and the intern involved the exchange of labor for experience, but no monetary compensation was provided. Thus, the agreement is not a valid legal contract.
Historically, revolutionary scientific theories are initially rejected by the academic establishment. Dr. Vance's new theory of quantum gravity has been warmly embraced by all major physics journals. Therefore, Dr. Vance's theory is incorrect.
The mayor's proposal will reduce traffic congestion in the downtown area. Any proposal that reduces traffic congestion will ultimately improve the city's air quality. Therefore, the city council will definitively approve the mayor's proposal.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 pairs with 'Only entities classified as alive...', Argument 2 pairs with 'Municipal funding cannot...', Argument 3 pairs with 'An agreement lacks...', Argument 4 pairs with 'No scientific theory is correct...', and Argument 5 pairs with 'The city council approves...'
Each correct pairing connects an argument to the specific conditional statement that logically bridges the gap between its premises and its conclusion. By translating the text into formal logic (e.g., identifying contrapositives or mapping conditional chains), each matched assumption provides the exact sufficient condition required to make its corresponding argument 100% deductively valid.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the prion argument to isolate the missing logical link.
The premises prove prions are 'not alive'. The conclusion states they are 'incapable of evolution'. The required bridge is 'not alive -> incapable of evolution' or its contrapositive 'capable of evolution -> alive'.
Identifying the exact deductive gap is the first step in recognizing a sufficient assumption.
2
Analyze the referendum argument's conditional logic.
Premises: Expand -> Increase Funding. Referendum -> Capped Taxes. Conclusion: Referendum -> Not Expand. We must bridge 'Capped Taxes' to 'Not Increase Funding'.
Chaining conditional statements reveals precisely where the argument's logic breaks down.
3
Identify the missing trigger in the contract argument.
We need to prove the agreement lacks mutual consideration to invoke the rule that it is not a valid contract. The assumption must state that 'no monetary compensation' guarantees a 'lack of mutual consideration'.
Sufficient assumptions often serve to trigger a pre-existing conditional premise.
4
Evaluate the contrapositives in the scientific theory argument.
Vance's theory was not rejected, so it is not revolutionary. To conclude it is incorrect, we need 'Not revolutionary -> Incorrect'. This is the contrapositive of 'Correct -> Revolutionary' (No theory is correct unless it is revolutionary).
Translating 'unless' statements into standard 'if-then' conditional formatting is necessary to test validity.
5
Complete the causal/conditional chain for the mayor's proposal.
The premises lead to the fact that the proposal will improve air quality. To conclude approval, the assumption must state that improving air quality is sufficient to guarantee council approval.
Linking the final derived premise to the conclusion is the standard method for solving bridging assumption questions.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying deductive gaps and supplying the exact formal logic conditional (or its contrapositive) that makes the conclusion 100% valid.
Soru 302Soru →

Urban Planner: To reduce our municipality's soaring electricity expenses, we should replace all conventional streetlamps in the downtown district with genetically engineered bioluminescent flora. These plants emit a steady glow without drawing any power from the grid. Therefore, implementing this replacement will drastically lower the downtown district's overall operational budget while preserving the area's nighttime usability.

Evaluate the argument by applying the Variance Test. Match each hypothetical factual discovery about the bioluminescent flora (left) to its corresponding logical impact on the planner's conclusion (right).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Yes, the flora require an expensive, specialized nutrient gel applied weekly to survive urban pollution.
No, the flora are entirely self-sustaining and require less physical upkeep than conventional streetlamps.
Yes, the light emitted by the flora meets or exceeds all current municipal standards for pedestrian and traffic visibility.
No, the flora emit a faint glow that cannot penetrate common urban fog or rain, making navigation hazardous.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings accurately map each polar outcome to its precise logical effect on the two core claims of the argument: the reduction of the operational budget and the preservation of nighttime usability.
Applying the Variance Test requires determining how opposite answers to a question impact the argument. If a 'Yes' weakens and a 'No' strengthens (or vice versa), the issue is highly relevant. The correct matches successfully align each factual discovery with its logical impact on either the budget premise or the visibility premise.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the core argument structure
Conclusion: Replacing streetlamps with flora will lower the operational budget and preserve usability. Premise: Flora emit light without drawing grid power.
Identifying the two distinct sub-claims (budget reduction and usability preservation) is necessary to evaluate the argument.
2
Apply the Variance Test to the budget claim
The budget claim assumes no new hidden costs will offset the electricity savings.
Evaluating an argument requires identifying unstated assumptions that could make or break the conclusion.
3
Match budget-related discoveries
Paired the expensive nutrient gel discovery with weakening the budget claim, and self-sustaining flora with strengthening it.
A 'Yes' outcome to hidden costs weakens the financial conclusion, while a 'No' outcome strengthens it by removing a potential obstacle.
4
Match usability-related discoveries
Paired adequate visibility with strengthening the usability claim, and the faint glow in fog with weakening it.
A 'Yes' outcome to meeting standards strengthens the functional conclusion, while a 'No' outcome directly weakens it.

Anahtar Kavram

The Variance Test consists of supplying polar opposite responses (e.g., Yes/No) to an evaluation question and analyzing whether one response strengthens the argument while the other weakens it.
Soru 303Soru →

Match each argumentative scenario with the universal principle that, if valid, most helps to logically justify its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The proposed tax on sugary beverages is designed to improve public health, but it will disproportionately burden low-income families. Therefore, the city council should vote against it.
Dr. Lin’s study yielded groundbreaking insights into human behavior, yet it relies on subjects who were kept ignorant of the study's true purpose. Consequently, the study should be denied publication.
The new highway expansion will dramatically reduce traffic congestion for commuters. However, it will destroy a significant portion of the local wetlands. Thus, the state must halt the project.
Company X discovered a software flaw that could theoretically allow data access. Although no access occurred and it is now patched, Company X is obligated to notify all users.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Each argumentative scenario is correctly paired with the principle that abstractly formulates a conditional rule sufficient to guarantee the scenario's conclusion.
Each correctly matched principle acts as a sufficient assumption (If Premise -> Then Conclusion) that logically guarantees the conclusion of its corresponding scenario. The principles abstract the specific details (e.g., 'sugary beverage tax' becomes 'legislation', 'wetlands' becomes 'ecologically sensitive habitats') while maintaining the precise logical relationship required to prove the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each argumentative scenario to separate the factual premises from the normative conclusion.
Identified the logical gap in each scenario where a specific factual premise requires a broader universal rule to necessitate the stated conclusion.
Justifying a principle requires understanding exactly what missing conditional rule is needed to bridge the premises to the conclusion.
2
Examine the provided principles to find the universal rule that guarantees each specific conclusion.
Matched the specific elements of each scenario (e.g., deceiving participants, harming wetlands) to the generalized sufficient conditions in the principles.
The credited principle must be sufficient to logically entail the conclusion when combined with the argument's premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Principle - Justify: Identifying sufficient conditional rules that bridge the gap between factual premises and normative conclusions.
Soru 304Soru →

Match each flawed argument with the sufficient assumption that logically guarantees its conclusion. Consider contrapositives and conditional translations carefully.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Argument 1: The proposed budget cuts will drastically reduce funding for the arts program. Therefore, the budget cuts will harm the intellectual development of the students.
Argument 2: To qualify as a historical landmark, a building must have been constructed before 1920. The abandoned textile mill was built in 1934. Thus, the mill cannot be exempted from the new property tax.
Argument 3: The novel's protagonist acts out of pure self-interest rather than a sense of moral duty. Hence, the novel cannot be classified as a traditional tragedy.
Argument 4: The governor's transit initiative relies heavily on privatized toll roads. Therefore, the initiative will disproportionately burden low-income commuters.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Each argument must be matched with the assumption that perfectly bridges the gap between its premises and conclusion, often presented as a contrapositive or through advanced conditional terminology like 'unless' or 'only if'.
Each correct pair matches an argument with a missing logical link to the rule that perfectly bridges that gap. The matching assumptions utilize contrapositives and complex conditional phrasing (e.g., 'only if', 'unless') to state the required bridges logically.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Argument 1's logical gap.
The gap is between reducing arts funding and harming intellectual development.
To guarantee the conclusion, we need a premise stating that reducing arts funding causes intellectual harm.
2
Identify the assumption for Argument 1.
The correct match is the statement that provides the contrapositive of the needed rule.
The statement 'If not harming development -> not reducing funding' is logically equivalent to 'If reducing funding -> harming development'.
3
Analyze Argument 2's structure.
Premise: Landmark -> Built before 1920. The mill is NOT built before 1920. Conclusion: The mill is NOT exempted.
The missing link must logically connect being exempted to being built before 1920.
4
Identify the assumption for Argument 2.
The matching assumption states 'Exempted -> Built before 1920'.
Since the mill fails the necessary condition (built before 1920), it cannot be exempted, perfectly guaranteeing the conclusion.
5
Analyze Argument 3's gap.
Premise: Protagonist acts out of self-interest. Conclusion: Not a traditional tragedy.
We need the rule 'Self-interest -> Not traditional tragedy'.
6
Identify the assumption for Argument 3.
The statement 'Traditional tragedy only if not self-interest' translates to 'Traditional tragedy -> Not self-interest'.
This is the contrapositive of the required premise, validating the argument.
7
Analyze Argument 4's gap and matching assumption.
Gap: Toll roads -> Burdens commuters. The match uses 'No X unless Y' format.
The statement 'No initiative relies on toll roads unless it burdens commuters' means 'If it relies on toll roads, it burdens commuters', which bridges the gap.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption Conditional Mapping
Soru 305Soru →

Match each stimulus argument (Left) with the necessary supporter assumption (Right) required to logically bridge the gap between its premise and its conclusion. Note that all arguments relate to the fictional ecology of Vespera Valley, requiring careful attention to the specific logical structure of each rather than shared vocabulary.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Since the predatory Kestrel was introduced to Vespera Valley, the native Silver Vole population has plummeted. Therefore, the Silver Vole must lack the natural camouflage required to evade avian predators.
The invasive Crimson Vine in Vespera Valley aggressively outcompetes native understory plants for sunlight and soil nutrients. Consequently, the valley is currently experiencing a severe collapse in overall ecological biodiversity.
If the Vespera Valley council restricts human access to the eastern trails, the breeding grounds of the Azure Warbler will remain undisturbed. Therefore, restricting human access to those trails will protect the Azure Warbler from imminent extinction.
A recent survey of Vespera Valley reveals that the percentage of oak trees exhibiting leaf-blight is much higher in the northern quadrant than in the southern quadrant. Clearly, the northern quadrant has experienced higher volumes of acidic rainfall.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match each stimulus to the assumption that connects its unique premise to its unique conclusion. The Kestrel argument pairs with the camouflage assumption; the Crimson Vine argument pairs with the biodiversity assumption; the Azure Warbler argument pairs with the extinction assumption; and the oak tree argument pairs with the acidic rainfall assumption.
Each correct pair represents a classic Supporter Assumption relationship. In each stimulus, the author introduces a completely new concept in the conclusion (camouflage, biodiversity collapse, imminent extinction, acidic rainfall) that was not established by the premises. A valid Supporter Assumption must act as a missing premise, explicitly linking the evidence provided to the new concept introduced in the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the conclusion of the first argument and identify any 'rogue' elements—concepts that appear in the conclusion but were never mentioned in the premises.
In the Kestrel argument, 'lack the natural camouflage' is the rogue element.
A Supporter Assumption must explicitly bridge the gap between the new information in the conclusion and the established facts in the premises.
2
Scan the available assumptions for a statement that explicitly links the premise to the rogue conclusion element.
The assumption regarding a plummeting prey population lacking 'natural camouflage' perfectly bridges the gap for the Kestrel argument.
This establishes the necessary conditional relationship to make the conclusion logically valid.
3
Repeat this process for the remaining arguments, ignoring shared domain vocabulary (like 'Vespera Valley') and focusing strictly on the logical leaps.
The 'collapse in ecological biodiversity' links to 'displacement of understory plants'; 'protection from extinction' links to 'undisturbed breeding grounds'; and 'acidic rainfall' links to 'leaf-blight'.
In complex matching scenarios where all items share a theme, structural mapping prevents falling for semantic distractors.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions
Soru 306Soru →

Match each flawed argument below to the abstract description that most accurately identifies its logical error.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Anyone who gets the promotion will buy a new car. Therefore, since Sarah bought a new car, she must have gotten the promotion.
If the company increases its marketing budget, profits will rise. However, the company will not increase its marketing budget, so profits will certainly not rise.
The symphony orchestra is known worldwide for its flawless timing. Therefore, the orchestra's newly hired violinist must have flawless timing.
We should reject Dr. Smith's findings regarding the new food additive. After all, Dr. Smith was recently involved in a highly publicized tax evasion scandal.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 matches with treating a necessary condition as sufficient; Argument 2 matches with confusing the lack of a sufficient condition for the lack of a necessary condition; Argument 3 matches with the whole-to-part composition error; Argument 4 matches with the ad hominem source attack.
Each argument perfectly models one of the classic logical flaws tested on the LSAT: illegal reversal, illegal negation, composition (whole-to-part), and ad hominem. The corresponding abstract descriptions accurately summarize these precise structural errors without relying on the specific subject matter.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first argument's conditional structure.
Identify it as a conditional reasoning flaw where the necessary condition is used to incorrectly guarantee the sufficient condition.
To match it with the 'necessary treated as sufficient' description.
2
Analyze the second argument's conditional structure.
Identify it as a conditional reasoning flaw where the denial of the sufficient condition is incorrectly used to deny the necessary condition.
To match it with the 'sufficient condition not met' description.
3
Analyze the scope of the third argument.
Identify it as a composition flaw where an attribute of the orchestra is incorrectly applied to an individual member.
To match it with the 'characteristic of a group applied to a member' description.
4
Analyze the focus of the fourth argument.
Identify it as a source argument flaw where the author attacks the researcher instead of the research.
To match it with the 'dismissing a conclusion based on personal flaws' description.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying abstract logical flaws within varied arguments.
Soru 307Soru →

Each of the following arguments relies on a flawed assumption that artificially restricts the available possibilities. Which critique accurately describes the specific false dichotomy committed in each argument?

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

To solve the state's severe budget deficit, legislators must either drastically cut funding for public healthcare or face imminent state bankruptcy. Since citizens will never accept degrading the quality of healthcare, declaring bankruptcy is completely unavoidable.
The ancient empire's sudden collapse must have been caused by either a massive volcanic eruption or a violent foreign invasion. Extensive geological surveys have found no trace of volcanic ash from that era, so the empire was undoubtedly conquered by foreign armies.
The only way our technology startup can avoid insolvency this quarter is by either launching the beta software prematurely or securing an emergency loan from our primary investors. Since those investors have categorically refused to provide additional funding, we are forced to release the unfinished product.
A successful modern novel must either deliver a thrilling, fast-paced narrative or deeply explore profound philosophical themes. Because this author's newest release is an action-packed detective story, it clearly lacks any serious thematic depth.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The budget argument pairs with the critique regarding alternative financial variables. The archaeology argument pairs with the critique regarding alternative catastrophic occurrences. The startup argument pairs with the critique regarding alternative organizational strategies. The novel argument pairs with the critique assuming qualitative elements are mutually exclusive.
Each argument represents a distinct structural manifestation of the False Dilemma flaw. By isolating the constrained options presented in each stimulus (e.g., 'must either X or Y', 'the only way... is A or B'), you can directly map them to the critiques that explicitly point out the specific alternatives or middle-ground realities that were improperly excluded from the author's reasoning.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the state budget argument to identify the false dichotomy.
The argument assumes the only two options are cutting public healthcare or facing bankruptcy.
This perfectly matches the critique that takes for granted that a financial shortfall cannot be addressed by altering other variables, such as new revenues.
2
Analyze the ancient empire argument to identify the false dichotomy.
The argument assumes the only causes for the sudden collapse are a volcanic eruption or a foreign invasion.
This directly matches the critique that fails to consider alternative catastrophic occurrences like drought or internal rebellion.
3
Analyze the technology startup argument to identify the false dichotomy.
The argument assumes the only ways to avoid insolvency are launching prematurely or securing a loan from primary investors.
This aligns with the critique that neglects alternative organizational strategies to avert a crisis, such as reducing operating expenses.
4
Analyze the modern novel argument to identify the false dichotomy.
The argument assumes a novel can either have a fast-paced narrative or philosophical themes, treating them as an either/or scenario.
This corresponds to the critique that assumes two distinct qualitative elements are mutually exclusive and cannot be integrated.

Anahtar Kavram

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 308Soru →

Evaluate the four argumentative scenarios provided below. For each scenario, identify the normative or operational principle that, if assumed true, formally justifies the conclusion reached in the argument.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A technology firm concluded it is not obligated to notify users about a newly discovered security vulnerability, reasoning that exploiting the flaw requires a malicious actor to have physical possession of the user's device.
The city council approved the demolition of the historic downtown library. They reasoned that renovating the structure to meet modern earthquake safety standards would cost significantly more than constructing a completely new library on the same plot.
The regulatory agency determined that a local manufacturing plant does not need to install additional water filtration systems, since the chemical byproduct it releases has not been conclusively proven to harm aquatic wildlife.
An institutional review board ruled that Dr. Aris's use of deception in his psychological study was ethically permissible, pointing out that the scientific insights gained could eventually lead to a cure for a rare cognitive disease.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Properly pair the tech scenario with the remote weaponization exemption, the urban scenario with the construction cost comparison, the environmental scenario with the definitive damage requirement, and the research scenario with the medical breakthrough allowance.
Each correctly paired principle acts as a logical bridge. When the premise from the scenario is combined with the universal rule provided by the principle, the conclusion of the scenario becomes a formally valid deduction.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each scenario to isolate the premise and the conclusion.
Identified the logical gap in each argument (e.g., in the environmental scenario, moving from 'not proven harmful' to 'no filtration needed').
Justify questions require finding a rule that bridges the specific gap between the given premise and the stated conclusion.
2
Evaluate the principles to determine their conditional logical structure.
Identified sufficient indicators ('if', 'whenever', 'provided that') and necessary indicators ('only when').
A justifying principle must function as a sufficient condition that guarantees the conclusion when the premise is met.
3
Match the principles to the scenarios by applying the conditional rules.
Confirmed that each selected principle, when added to its corresponding scenario's premise, logically forces the conclusion to be true (including recognizing the contrapositive application in the environmental pairing).
This verifies that the paired principle strictly justifies the argument rather than merely strengthening it or stating a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Principle - Justify
Soru 309Soru →

Review the four abbreviated logical arguments below. Each argument contains a flawed inference due to a missing conceptual link between its stated premise and its conclusion. Pair each argument with the specific unstated supporter assumption required to logically bridge that gap.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Archaeology: The ceramic vessels recovered from the Oakhaven excavation contain concentrated traces of fermented maize. Therefore, the inhabitants of this ancient settlement must have operated within a highly stratified social hierarchy.
Economics: The central bank’s newly adopted macroeconomic strategy prioritizes inflation suppression over achieving full employment. Consequently, this strategy will inevitably diminish the collective bargaining power of domestic labor unions.
Science: The theoretical model developed by the research team relies exclusively on non-linear stochastic equations. Therefore, the team's framework cannot possibly generate deterministic long-term forecasts.
Policy: The revised municipal zoning ordinance explicitly mandates high-density residential architecture in the downtown sector. As a result, the fundamental historical character of that sector will be irreversibly compromised.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Archaeology pairs with the assumption about fermented maize being exclusive to stratified societies. Economics pairs with the assumption that failing to prioritize full employment undermines bargaining power. Science pairs with the contrapositive assumption regarding deterministic forecasts and mathematical elements. Policy pairs with the assumption linking high-density architecture to irreversibly compromised historical character.
Each correct pairing provides the exact logical link missing from the abbreviated argument. A valid supporter assumption must take the distinct evidence offered in the premise and connect it explicitly to the novel term introduced in the conclusion, often using conditional logic (e.g., 'If [Premise Concept], then [Conclusion Concept]').

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each argument to isolate the premise and identify the 'rogue element' introduced in the conclusion.
Identified rogue elements: 'highly stratified social hierarchy' (Archaeology), 'diminish collective bargaining power' (Economics), 'cannot generate deterministic long-term forecasts' (Science), and 'irreversibly compromised historical character' (Policy).
Supporter assumptions must explicitly connect new or unstated concepts in the conclusion back to the evidence provided in the premises.
2
Evaluate the available assumptions to find the precise logical bridge for the Science argument, which requires recognizing a contrapositive structure.
Matched Science to the assumption stating 'Any theoretical model capable of generating... forecasts must incorporate... elements other than... stochastic equations.'
This is the contrapositive of the required direct link: If exclusively non-linear stochastic -> Cannot generate deterministic forecasts.
3
Match the remaining arguments by finding the assumptions that guarantee the rogue conclusions based on the given premises.
Completed the pairings: l1 to r3, l2 to r4, and l4 to r2.
Each selected assumption operates as a missing premise that, when added to the original argument, makes the conclusion logically valid.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions
Soru 310Soru →

Review the following four scenarios, each presenting a distinct claim based on specific premises. Pair each scenario with the corresponding statement that most effectively bridges its logical gap and reinforces the drawn conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Municipal administrators attribute the recent reduction in urban gridlock directly to the inauguration of a new mass transit initiative, noting that the decrease coincided perfectly with the system's launch.
Clinical researchers claim that a newly formulated synthetic preservative induces severe physiological imbalances, based on observations that subjects consuming items heavy in the substance developed altered endocrine profiles.
Cultural historians assert that the anonymous creator of a series of 16th-century canvas masterpieces originally trained by carving stone, pointing out the uniquely accurate volumetric rendering of the subjects.
Wildlife biologists conclude that the density of apex predators in a specific biome has expanded significantly over the past decade, basing this on records showing that recent field extraction efforts secured twice as many specimens.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The urban traffic scenario pairs with the remote-work attendance mandate statement; the clinical research scenario pairs with the separate control cohort statement; the art history scenario pairs with the plastic arts curricula statement; the wildlife biology scenario pairs with the standardized methodology statement.
Each scenario requires a distinct approach to logically strengthen its conclusion. The traffic scenario requires ruling out an alternative cause. The clinical preservative scenario requires demonstrating cause-without-effect via a control group. The art history scenario requires a premise that explicitly bridges a conceptual gap between two disparate ideas. Finally, the wildlife biology scenario requires validating the integrity and consistency of the underlying sampling data.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the urban traffic scenario to identify its logical vulnerability.
The argument relies purely on a correlation in time (transit launch and reduced gridlock) and is vulnerable to alternative causes.
Identifying the conceptual gap is the prerequisite for selecting the correct strengthening archetype.
2
Match the traffic scenario with evidence that rules out alternative causes.
The statement regarding corporate attendance mandates perfectly addresses this by eliminating remote work as a confounding variable.
Ruling out plausible alternative explanations solidifies the original causal claim.
3
Analyze the clinical research scenario regarding the synthetic preservative.
The argument establishes a correlation but lacks comparative isolation of the variable.
Without a control, physiological imbalances could logically be attributed to a myriad of other dietary or environmental factors.
4
Match the clinical scenario with proper control group data.
The statement describing an identical cohort excluding only the synthetic compound provides the necessary cause-without-effect control.
Isolating the variable in a controlled setting confirms the substance is the primary causal agent.
5
Analyze the art history scenario.
The argument assumes a direct connection between 'volumetric rendering' and 'carving stone' without establishing a necessary historical link.
Conceptual leaps between provided evidence and a specific conclusion require a bridging premise.
6
Match the art history scenario with the bridging premise.
The statement linking spatial accuracy exclusively to plastic arts and masonry guilds provides the definitive link.
This directly connects the observed evidence in the paintings to the author's specific conclusion about the artist's foundational training.
7
Analyze the wildlife biology scenario.
The conclusion heavily relies on sampling data being accurately representative of the entire population.
Increases in catch rates can often be attributed to improved techniques or better locations rather than biological expansion.
8
Match the wildlife scenario with evidence of methodological consistency.
The statement confirming that physical collection apparatus and deployment were exact replicates validates the data integrity.
Ruling out changes in sampling efficiency ensures the data accurately reflects genuine population trends.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument Strengthening Archetypes
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 311Soru →

Match each flawed or incomplete argument regarding the restoration of the Fresco of Verano to the sufficient assumption that, if true, logically guarantees its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The Fresco of Verano will be restored using the newly developed laser-ablation technique. Therefore, the fresco's delicate original pigmentation will not be damaged during the restoration process.
If the restoration team applies chemical solvents to the Fresco of Verano, they will damage its original pigmentation. Since the team has decided not to apply chemical solvents, the original pigmentation will remain completely intact.
To successfully preserve the original pigmentation of the Fresco of Verano, the restoration team must completely avoid abrasive scrubbing. Because the team's protocol strictly avoids abrasive scrubbing, the original pigmentation will be successfully preserved.
The Fresco of Verano will be successfully restored only if the mural is permanently relocated to a climate-controlled museum facility. Therefore, it is inevitable that the Fresco of Verano will not be successfully restored.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 requires the assumption that laser-ablation leaves pigmentation undamaged. Argument 2 requires the assumption that pigmentation is damaged only if chemical solvents are applied. Argument 3 requires the assumption that avoiding abrasive scrubbing is sufficient to preserve the pigmentation. Argument 4 requires the assumption that the mural will not be relocated to a climate-controlled facility.
Each correct assumption provides the exact logical bridge needed to make its corresponding argument formally valid. For the first argument, it connects the premise directly to the conclusion. For the second and third, it converts flawed conditional deductions (negation and reversal) into valid ones by providing the missing direction of the conditional relationship. For the fourth, it provides the missing factual premise to trigger modus tollens.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the first argument.
Premise: Laser-ablation is used. Conclusion: Pigmentation is not damaged. The missing link is 'If laser-ablation is used, pigmentation is not damaged.'
To guarantee the conclusion, we need a conditional statement linking the new premise directly to the new conclusion.
2
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the second argument.
Premise: Solvents -> Damage. Premise: No Solvents. Conclusion: No Damage. This is an illegal negation. We need the assumption 'Damage -> Solvents' so that 'No Solvents -> No Damage' follows.
Translating 'only if' to a necessary condition fixes the illegal negation by allowing a valid contrapositive deduction.
3
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the third argument.
Premise: Preserve -> Avoid Scrubbing. Premise: Avoid Scrubbing. Conclusion: Preserve. This is an illegal reversal. We need the assumption 'Avoid Scrubbing -> Preserve'.
Making the necessary condition sufficient guarantees the conclusion.
4
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the fourth argument.
Premise: Restored -> Relocated. Conclusion: Not Restored. We need the premise 'Not Relocated' to complete the modus tollens deduction.
Denying the necessary condition is required to validly deny the sufficient condition.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient assumptions must provide 100% logical certainty to the conclusion when added to the premises. This often involves completing conditional chains or fixing flawed conditional reasoning (like illegal reversals or negations).
Soru 312Soru →

Analyze the following arguments, each of which relies on an unstated assumption involving conditional logic. Match each argument to the necessary or sufficient assumption that logically bridges the gap between its premises and its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The metropolitan area will drastically reduce its carbon footprint if commuters adopt mass transit en masse. The city council's newly approved subsidy plan aggressively targets suburban train ticket prices. Therefore, the metropolitan area will drastically reduce its carbon footprint.
A geological fault line is highly active only if it registers micro-tremors on a weekly basis. The Cascade fault system is known to be highly active. Therefore, the Cascade fault system must have recently exhibited significant geothermal venting.
The university's endowment will grow significantly this year. After all, the endowment grows significantly whenever alumni donations increase, and the university recently launched a highly praised career networking platform.
A renewable energy grid cannot be considered stable unless it includes massive battery storage facilities. Therefore, the coastal wind farm project's new grid will not be considered stable, because it relies heavily on short-term federal grants.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 matches with the commuter subsidy bridge; Argument 2 matches with the contrapositive linking venting to tremors; Argument 3 matches with the platform-to-donations guarantee; and Argument 4 matches with the federal grants to battery storage connection.
Each correct pair seamlessly connects the factual premise of the argument to the conditional trigger required to validate the conclusion. When necessary, the assumption is presented in its logically equivalent contrapositive form (as seen in the geology argument).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the formal logic of each argument's premises and conclusion.
Identify the conditional triggers: 'if' (sufficient), 'only if' (necessary), 'whenever' (sufficient), and 'unless' (necessary).
Accurately diagramming the stated conditions is required before the missing link can be identified.
2
Identify the 'dangling' terms in the premises and conclusion to find the logical gap.
For example, in the geological argument, the premises arrive at 'registers micro-tremors', but the conclusion introduces 'geothermal venting'.
The correct assumption must perfectly bridge these unmatched terms without introducing outside information.
3
Evaluate the assumption choices for direct conditional links or logically equivalent contrapositives.
The geological gap (Micro-tremors -> Geothermal Venting) is satisfied by finding its contrapositive (No Venting -> No Micro-tremors) in the available choices.
Test makers frequently hide the correct bridging assumption by stating it in its contrapositive form.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging logical gaps using sufficient/necessary assumptions and recognizing their contrapositives.
Soru 313Soru →

Analyze the four distinct scenarios below. For each scenario, two apparently incompatible facts are presented. Identify the corresponding underlying mechanism that successfully reconciles the contradictory information in each case without violating either given premise.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Conservationists introduce a specialized biological agent to cull an invasive herbivore species that is decimating local flora, but the overall population of the invasive herbivore subsequently surges.
A manufacturing sector implements a widespread four-day workweek without reducing employee compensation in an effort to improve morale, yet overall employee turnover rates significantly increase.
A municipal health department offers substantial cash incentives to citizens who successfully complete a supervised weight-loss program, but the average baseline weight of the targeted demographic increases over the year.
A corporation fully transitions its support division to an advanced automated system capable of resolving standard inquiries in seconds, yet the volume of unresolved, escalated complaints skyrockets.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Match the environmental scenario with the elimination of the indigenous predator; the labor economics scenario with unchanged production quotas causing burnout; the public health scenario with participants deliberately gaming the baseline measurements; and the technological adoption scenario with the influx of nuanced grievances.
Each correct pairing introduces a mechanism that serves as a logical bridge. Eliminating an apex predator explains pest surges; extreme work intensification explains the turnover; perverse financial incentives explain the weight gain; and shifting user behavior explains the technological failure.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the environmental science paradox
Identify that a mechanism must explain why introducing an anti-pest agent helps the pest multiply.
To match with the indigenous predator mechanism, proving the new agent destroyed a vital pre-existing ecological constraint.
2
Analyze the labor economics paradox
Identify that a mechanism must explain how working fewer days for the same pay leads to employees quitting.
To match with the condensed schedule mechanism, showing that the intensity of the work increased disproportionately to the time saved.
3
Analyze the public health policy paradox
Identify that a mechanism must explain how paying people to lose weight causes average weights to rise.
To match with the behavioral mechanism of citizens artificially inflating their starting weight to secure larger cash payouts.
4
Analyze the technological adoption paradox
Identify that a mechanism must explain how a faster, capable system produces more failures.
To match with the mechanism demonstrating that the system's existence changed the nature and complexity of the inputs it received.

Anahtar Kavram

Resolving apparent discrepancies by introducing new, compatible facts that bridge the logical gap between conflicting premises without relying on outside assumptions.
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 314Soru →

Pair each of the following flawed arguments with the argument that exhibits an identical pattern of faulty reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

If a city has a subway system, it experiences less traffic congestion. Springfield is currently experiencing less traffic congestion. Therefore, Springfield must have built a subway system.
Every individual puzzle piece in this box is shaped like a square. Consequently, when the puzzle is completely assembled, the final image will be shaped like a square.
Studies show that employees who take frequent walks report higher job satisfaction. Therefore, taking frequent walks directly increases an employee's job satisfaction.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The city subway argument matches the baking powder argument (Illegal Reversal). The puzzle piece argument matches the brick building argument (Part-to-Whole). The employee walks argument matches the streetlight argument (Correlation vs. Causation).
Each pair correctly links a stimulus argument with a target argument that shares the exact same logical vulnerability: illegal reversal, part-to-whole composition, and confusing correlation with causation, respectively.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first argument about the city subway system.
Identify the flaw as an illegal reversal: 'If A (subway) then B (less traffic). B (less traffic) is true, so A (subway) must be true.'
Understanding the abstract structure of the error is required to find its match.
2
Find the matching flaw among the available options.
The baking powder argument uses the exact same structure: 'If A (baking powder) then B (cake rises). B (cake rises) is true, so A (baking powder) must be true.'
This establishes the first parallel flaw pair.
3
Analyze the second argument about the puzzle pieces.
Identify the flaw as a part-to-whole error (composition): assuming the whole has a property just because its constituent parts do.
Extracting the logical error allows for structural comparison.
4
Find the corresponding part-to-whole error.
The brick building argument assumes the whole building is light because individual bricks are light, directly matching the puzzle argument.
This establishes the second parallel flaw pair.
5
Analyze the third argument about employee walks.
Identify the flaw as confusing correlation with causation: assuming walks cause satisfaction simply because the two are linked.
Identifying the causal assumption isolates the final abstract flaw type.
6
Match the final argument.
The streetlight argument assumes streetlights cause lower crime just because they are correlated, which perfectly matches the employee walks argument.
This confirms and completes all parallel flaw pairings.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Flaw
Soru 315Soru →

Match each of the following brief arguments to the abstract description that most accurately identifies its logical flaw.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Senator Vance's proposed legislation to strictly regulate artificial intelligence development should be dismissed outright. As a former executive at a traditional software company that lost market share to AI startups, Vance clearly harbors a grudge against the new industry. His arguments about data privacy are just a smokescreen for his desire to stifle competitors.
We are currently facing an unprecedented budget deficit. Therefore, we must either completely eliminate our lunar colonization program or immediately double the income tax rate for all citizens. Since the public will absolutely not tolerate a massive tax hike, we have no choice but to shut down the lunar program.
The new fusion restaurant downtown is guaranteed to be an extraordinary dining establishment. They have hired Chef Antoine, who is world-renowned for his sauces, Chef Bella, who has won international awards for her pastry, and Chef Carlos, a master of seafood. With such exceptional individual talent in the kitchen, the restaurant as a whole will be flawless.
Over the last three decades, the cost of extracting fossil fuels in the northern territories has steadily decreased year over year due to advancing drilling technology. Consequently, we can rely on these extraction operations to become even cheaper over the next decade, ensuring affordable energy for the region.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Stimulus 1 matches the Ad Hominem flaw, Stimulus 2 matches the False Dilemma flaw, Stimulus 3 matches the Composition flaw, and Stimulus 4 matches the Time Shift flaw.
Each stimulus exhibits a classic LSAT logical fallacy. By isolating the premises and conclusion of each short argument, the structural gap can be mapped perfectly to the abstract phrasing provided in the correct flaw description.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Stimulus 1 to isolate its premise and conclusion.
Premise: Vance has a grudge and a vested interest. Conclusion: His legislation should be dismissed.
Identifying the structural gap reveals that the author attacks the person's motive rather than the argument.
2
Analyze Stimulus 2 to isolate its premise and conclusion.
Premise: We must do extreme action A or extreme action B. Action B is impossible. Conclusion: We must do action A.
This exposes the assumption that no other options exist (False Dilemma).
3
Analyze Stimulus 3 to isolate its premise and conclusion.
Premise: Individual parts (chefs) are excellent. Conclusion: The whole (restaurant) will be flawless.
This highlights the part-to-whole logical leap (Composition).
4
Analyze Stimulus 4 to isolate its premise and conclusion.
Premise: Costs decreased in the past. Conclusion: Costs will decrease in the future.
This demonstrates the unwarranted assumption that past trends guarantee future outcomes (Time Shift).

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying abstract descriptions of common logical fallacies.
Soru 316Soru →

Below are four distinct arguments, each relying on an unstated bridging rule. Pair each specific argument with the general principle that, if valid, would logically guarantee the argument's conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The government canceled the construction of a revolutionary deep-space observatory to reallocate the budget toward a vaccination program for a newly emerged pathogen. Therefore, the government's decision to halt the observatory project was correct.
A prestigious gallery realized that a landscape painting they previously sold to a client is actually a highly convincing forgery. Although the client loves the piece and is completely unaware of its true origin, the gallery ought to offer the client a full refund.
A software firm delivered a custom application to a client three weeks late strictly because an unprecedented, city-wide electrical grid failure halted all their operations. The client should not enforce the contract's late-delivery financial penalty against the firm.
A corporate board of directors dismissed a manager whose department had just achieved record-breaking quarterly earnings. The board's action was fully justified because the manager had explicitly ordered employees to bypass mandatory equipment checks to accelerate production.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The observatory scenario pairs with the biological crisis principle; the forged painting scenario pairs with the restitution principle; the late software scenario pairs with the infrastructural disruption principle; and the dismissed manager scenario pairs with the risk-management principle.
Each correct principle functions as a sufficient assumption in the form of a general rule. By translating the specific facts of each scenario into the abstract categories of the principles (e.g., 'deep-space observatory' becomes 'endeavor dedicated to expanding theoretical knowledge'), the principles formally entail the conclusions of their respective scenarios.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the observatory scenario to identify its premises and conclusion.
Premises: canceled an observatory (theoretical knowledge) to fund a vaccination program (biological crisis). Conclusion: the decision was correct.
Identifying the exact gap between premises and conclusion is necessary to find the principle that bridges them.
2
Find the principle that acts as a sufficient conditional rule for the first scenario.
The principle stating that canceling a theoretical endeavor to address a biological crisis warrants the cancellation provides the necessary conceptual match.
A justifying principle must guarantee the conclusion when the premises are true.
3
Analyze the forged painting scenario and find its corresponding principle.
Premises: gallery sold a forgery (non-genuine good), client is unaware and loves it. Conclusion: gallery must refund (restitution). The principle regarding a vendor issuing restitution for a non-genuine good provides this exact rule.
The principle must account for the specific concessions made in the argument, such as the buyer being satisfied.
4
Analyze the late software scenario and find its corresponding principle.
Premises: software late due to grid failure (infrastructural disruption). Conclusion: penalty should not be enforced (exempt from damages). The principle exempting a contracted entity from damages under these conditions matches this.
The principle must connect the exact cause of the delay to the exemption from the penalty.
5
Analyze the dismissed manager scenario and find its corresponding principle.
Premises: manager bypassed safety checks (risk-management) despite record earnings. Conclusion: dismissal justified. The principle justifying the termination of a leader who violates risk-management protocols matches this.
The principle must establish that the safety violation outweighs the financial success to justify the dismissal.

Anahtar Kavram

In Principle-Justify questions, the correct answer provides a broad, conditional rule (If Premises -> Then Conclusion) that guarantees the argument's conclusion when applied to the specific facts.
Soru 317Soru →

Analyze the four paradoxical scenarios below. Match each unexpected outcome with the explanatory premise that most logically resolves the apparent discrepancy without contradicting the established facts.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Labor Policy: A corporate law firm strictly capped the weekly hours junior associates could work, explicitly aiming to reduce burnout. One year later, reported burnout levels among these associates had severely increased.
Consumer Market: A luxury brand slashed prices on its core product line by 40% to attract middle-income buyers. While unit purchases by middle-income buyers surged exponentially, total overall revenue for the product line dropped.
Ecological Conservation: Officials banned the hunting of a predatory bird to protect it. Ten years later, the population of an endangered frog—the bird's primary prey—had inexplicably tripled in size.
Energy Efficiency: A city subsidized the universal installation of highly efficient smart thermostats. Despite flawless operation in 90% of homes, the city's total residential winter electricity usage rose.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Labor Policy pairs with the unchanged casework volume. Consumer Market pairs with the alienated wealthy clientele. Ecological Conservation pairs with the territorial bird deterring snakes. Energy Efficiency pairs with homeowners increasing baseline temperatures.
Each correct match provides a new piece of information that bridges the gap between the initial action and the surprising result without contradicting the premises. The labor resolution shows how time limits exacerbate workload stress. The market resolution explains the revenue drop through the loss of high-margin legacy customers. The ecology resolution introduces a trophic cascade where the predator suppresses a worse threat. The energy resolution demonstrates a behavioral shift (rebound effect) that outpaces the technological efficiency gains.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Labor Policy discrepancy.
Identify that reducing hours only reduces stress if workload decreases proportionally; finding the premise that workload remained identical explains the increased pacing stress.
To resolve a policy paradox, one must look for unintended operational consequences of the restriction.
2
Analyze the Consumer Market discrepancy.
Identify that increased unit sales alongside decreased total revenue requires a massive loss in another buyer segment; the departure of the status-conscious original clientele provides this mathematical offset.
Resolving a proportional paradox requires accounting for absolute numbers and hidden cohort shifts.
3
Analyze the Ecological Conservation discrepancy.
Identify that protecting a predator logically decreases its prey unless a confounding variable exists; the predator acting as a shield against a worse egg-eating threat perfectly bridges this gap.
Biological paradoxes usually rely on unstated third-party interactions (trophic cascades) within the ecosystem.
4
Analyze the Energy Efficiency discrepancy.
Identify that efficient devices only save energy if usage habits remain static; the premise showing users actively increased their heating demands explains the total usage spike.
Technological paradoxes often hinge on psychological or behavioral shifts induced by the new technology itself.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying missing premises that reconcile two seemingly incompatible facts by introducing secondary mechanisms, unintended behavioral shifts, or confounding variables.
Soru 318Soru →

The Negation Technique is a critical tool for evaluating Necessary Assumptions on the LSAT. Match each candidate assumption statement on the left with its logically precise negation on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Anyone who understands the complexities of the tax code will support the amendment.
Most of the artifacts discovered at the excavation site predate the Bronze Age.
Some of the politicians who campaigned on a platform of reform have accepted corporate donations.
The new transit system will be successful only if ridership increases by twenty percent.
Unless the city implements strict conservation measures, the reservoir will dry up by August.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The logically precise negations are formed by perfectly opposing the logical scope of quantifiers and conditional indicators. 'Anyone who...' negates to 'At least one person... does not'. 'Most...' negates to 'Half or fewer...'. 'Some...' negates to 'No...'. '...only if...' negates to '...successful, even though... does not...'. 'Unless...' negates to '...fails to implement, yet... does not...'.
To properly apply the Negation Technique on the LSAT, one must formulate the exact logical opposite of a statement. A statement and its negation must divide all possibilities into exactly two mutually exclusive outcomes. Over-negating (e.g., negating 'all' to 'none' instead of 'at least one is not') or failing to recognize conditional structures ('unless', 'only if') leads to incorrect assumption evaluation. These pairings demonstrate perfect logical boundaries.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze universal and existential quantifiers.
'Anyone' (all) negates to 'at least one is not'. 'Some' (at least one) negates to 'none'. 'Most' (more than half) negates to 'half or fewer'.
Accurate negation requires finding the exact mathematical or logical opposite without over-negating.
2
Analyze conditional indicators 'only if' and 'unless'.
'A only if B' negates to 'A and not B'. 'Unless A, B' means 'If not A, then B', which negates to 'Not A and Not B'.
Conditionals are negated by showing that the sufficient condition can occur even when the necessary condition fails.
3
Match each candidate statement to its logically equivalent negation.
Each statement is paired with the choice that logically destroys it.
This simulates the precise application of the Negation Technique used to validate Necessary Assumptions on the LSAT.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical Negation of Quantifiers and Conditionals
Soru 319Soru →

Match each flawed argument stimulus to the abstract description that most accurately identifies its logical error.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Art Historian: An artistic movement cannot be considered truly revolutionary unless it initially faces widespread institutional rejection. The Neo-Constructivist movement has been denied exhibition space by every major gallery in the country this year. We can confidently conclude, therefore, that Neo-Constructivism is a revolutionary movement.
Company Spokesperson: Our critics assert that our new chemical extraction process is not sustainable. But this is demonstrably false. Our corporation has sustained this exact extraction method for over a decade without any disruption to our supply chain or reduction in our profit margins.
Epidemiologist: In the county of Westbridge, the prevalence rate of severe dietary deficiencies among senior citizens is 15 percent, whereas in the neighboring county of Northridge, the rate is merely 5 percent. Therefore, despite Westbridge's recent nutritional outreach programs, there are currently more senior citizens suffering from dietary deficiencies in Westbridge than in Northridge.
Educational Researcher: Our longitudinal data reveals a striking trend: university students who regularly utilize the campus academic tutoring center have, on average, significantly lower final grades than students who never visit the center. Therefore, to improve their academic performance, students should avoid utilizing the tutoring center.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Art Historian argument matches with the necessary/sufficient confusion; the Company Spokesperson matches with the shifting meaning of a term (equivocation); the Epidemiologist matches with the proportions versus quantities error; and the Educational Researcher matches with the reverse causation description.
Each argument stimulus perfectly illustrates a distinct, classic logical fallacy. The Art Historian commits an illegal reversal by treating a necessary requirement as a guarantee. The Company Spokesperson commits equivocation by altering the definition of a pivotal word mid-argument. The Epidemiologist commits a numerical proportion flaw by treating a rate as an absolute quantity. The Educational Researcher commits a causal direction error by ignoring reverse causation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Art Historian stimulus to identify its formal logic flaw.
The argument affirms the necessary condition (institutional rejection) to falsely conclude that the sufficient condition (revolutionary movement) has been met.
Mapping the conditional statement 'cannot be X unless Y' yields 'If X -> Y'. The premise states Y is true, and the conclusion illegitimately claims X must be true.
2
Analyze the Company Spokesperson stimulus to locate the logical disconnect.
The spokesperson answers a criticism about ecological sustainability with evidence about business continuity.
The word 'sustainable' is used in two completely different senses, invalidating the conclusion.
3
Analyze the Epidemiologist stimulus for mathematical reasoning errors.
The argument jumps from comparing prevalence rates (15% vs 5%) to comparing absolute numbers ('more senior citizens').
Absolute numbers cannot be derived from percentages without knowing the total baseline populations of the two groups being compared.
4
Analyze the Educational Researcher stimulus for causal reasoning flaws.
The argument takes a correlation (tutoring center use and low grades) and infers a flawed causal direction.
It fails to consider that the low grades are the cause that drives students to use the tutoring center, rather than the tutoring center being the cause of the low grades.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying abstract logical flaws (Equivocation, Conditional Reversals, Numerical Errors, Causal Flaws)
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 320Soru →

Analyze the reasoning in each of the following short arguments. Pair each argument with the abstract description that most accurately identifies its primary logical vulnerability.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

If a municipality enacts restrictive zoning ordinances, local property values will invariably rise. Over the past decade, property values in the township of Oakhaven have risen dramatically. Thus, Oakhaven must have enacted restrictive zoning ordinances.
Every individual member of the Metropolitan String Quartet is an internationally renowned virtuoso. It logically follows that the Metropolitan String Quartet itself is an internationally renowned ensemble.
Recent sociological data reveals that regions with higher rates of daily internet consumption also report higher incidences of generalized anxiety. Therefore, it is evident that excessive internet consumption induces anxiety.
The two independent art critics we surveyed found the new abstract installation completely devoid of meaning. This definitively proves that no patron visiting the gallery will be able to derive meaning from the installation.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match each specific flawed argument to its corresponding logical fallacy: the zoning argument contains an illegal reversal (sufficient/necessary flaw), the quartet argument commits a composition fallacy (part-to-whole), the internet argument confuses correlation with causation, and the art exhibit argument relies on an unrepresentative sample.
Each pairing accurately maps the specific logical vulnerability of the argument to its formal definition. The zoning argument confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. The quartet argument falsely equates the properties of individual parts to the whole. The internet argument jumps from correlation to causation. The art exhibit argument overgeneralizes from an exceptionally small sample.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each stimulus argument on the left to isolate its premises and its conclusion.
The core reasoning structure of each argument is identified, stripping away the specific subject matter.
Parallel flaw analysis requires understanding the structural relationship between premises and conclusions, rather than the topical content.
2
Identify the specific logical gap or unwarranted assumption bridging the premises and conclusion in each argument.
The distinct fallacies are isolated: conditional reasoning reversal, part-to-whole projection, correlation-to-causation leap, and small sample generalization.
Pinpointing the exact nature of the flaw is necessary to find its abstract description.
3
Evaluate the abstract descriptions on the right and pair them with the arguments that exhibit the matching structural flaw.
Each argument is successfully mapped to its abstract logical error.
This completes the matching process by linking the applied reasoning to formal logical taxonomy.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Flaw - Identifying Abstract Logical Structures
ÖncekiSayfa 16 / 45Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin