Tüm alıştırma soruları

Match each logical argument with the required bridging (supporter) assumption that logically connects its premise to its conclusion.

For each reasoning sample below, identify the missing premise that is logically sufficient to prove the conclusion. Match each argument with the assumption that fully validates its inference.

Match each paradoxical scenario with the factual finding that most effectively resolves the apparent discrepancy.

Each of the arguments below contains a distinct logical flaw. Match each flawed argument with the abstract description that most accurately characterizes its primary reasoning vulnerability.

Read the following two passages regarding the theory of photography.

Passage A
The foundational epistemic authority of the photograph rests not on its mere visual verisimilitude—its capacity to resemble reality—but on its indexicality, which is its direct causal connection to the physical world. Unlike a painting, which is mediated entirely by the subjective hand of the artist and requires an active process of symbolic translation, a photograph is fundamentally a physical trace. Light reflected from an object strikes a photosensitive surface, leaving an objective, mechanically generated imprint. Even when a photographer exercises aesthetic judgment regarding framing, composition, or lighting, the resultant image remains inextricably tethered to the actual, historical presence of the subject before the lens. This chemical and optical inevitability endows the photograph with an irreducible evidentiary weight. It operates much like a footprint in the mud or a cast death mask; it is a direct material emanation of the real. Consequently, while viewers can certainly misinterpret the historical or social context of a photograph, the photograph itself cannot lie about the physical, spatial existence of the forms that patterned its surface at the exact moment of exposure. The camera functions as a mute, unthinking recording instrument, guaranteeing a baseline of unassailable fact.

Passage B
The enduring myth of photographic objectivity stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the photographic apparatus as an autonomous, neutral mechanical witness. In reality, every photograph is a deeply ideological artifact, saturated from its inception with the subjective intentionality of its maker. The persistent assumption that the camera simply "captures" or "records" a preexisting reality ignores the myriad ways in which the photographic act is inherently constructive, rather than merely receptive. From the initial selection of the frame—which necessarily violently excludes the vast majority of the visual field—to the choice of focal length, exposure time, and subsequent darkroom or digital processing, the photographer continuously imposes a specific, highly biased syntax upon the world. The resulting image is not a passive, unmediated imprint of nature, but a highly codified text designed to persuade, emphasize, point, or obscure. To treat a photograph as a direct physical footprint of the real is to succumb to a dangerous naiveté regarding how visual communication operates. Because the optical apparatus itself was historically designed specifically to reproduce culturally specific Renaissance conventions of perspective, the resulting images only mimic an objective reality. Ultimately, a photograph’s evidentiary status is established not by its chemical or optical origins, but entirely by the institutional, political, and discursive contexts in which it is eventually presented and consumed.

Based on the passages, match each concept or assertion made by the author of Passage A (on the left) with how the author of Passage B would most likely evaluate or characterize that concept (on the right).

Assess the four argumentative excerpts below, each of which contains a distinct logical flaw. Which abstract description most accurately identifies the primary reasoning vulnerability in each argument? Match each flawed excerpt with its corresponding flaw description.

Each of the following arguments contains an inferential gap between its premises and its conclusion. Match each incomplete argument on the left with the assumption on the right that, if added as an additional premise, is logically sufficient to make the argument's conclusion follow with absolute deductive certainty.

Match each incomplete logical argument with the missing bridge premise that, if assumed, logically guarantees the truth of its conclusion.

Passage A and Passage B below discuss competing theories regarding the crystallization of customary international law (CIL).

Passage A
The architecture of customary international law (CIL) has classically relied on two strictly concurrent pillars: *usus* (widespread, consistent material state practice) and *opinio juris* (the belief that such practice is legally obligatory). Recently, however, progressive scholars have advanced a "modernist" theory, positing that overwhelming expressions of *opinio juris*—often materialized as non-binding resolutions in international assemblies—can instantly crystallize into binding CIL. This paradigm is fundamentally flawed. Material state behavior must precede or evolve concurrently with *opinio juris*. When rhetorical declarations divorced from material reality are elevated to the status of binding law, the core tenet of state sovereignty is profoundly threatened. Sovereignty demands that states be bound only by rules to which they have tacitly consented through historical, observable compliance, not merely by the political posturing endemic to global forums. While critics correctly observe that the classical requirement of behavioral accumulation is a deliberative, gradual process, this very pace functions as a vital safeguard against the abrupt imposition of fabricated legal mandates.

Passage B
In an increasingly interconnected geopolitical landscape, the traditional dual-requirement doctrine governing customary international law (CIL) proves archaic and dangerously sluggish. Confronted with unprecedented, rapidly accelerating transnational crises—such as systemic ecological collapse and asymmetric cyber warfare—the international community can no longer afford the decades of slow behavioral adaptation historically required to satisfy the element of *usus*. Consequently, a modern paradigm has rightly emerged: instant custom. Under this framework, a robust, unified expression of normative consensus in international bodies is sufficient, on its own, to crystallize into binding CIL. Traditionalists argue that bypassing historical state practice erodes state sovereignty. This objection, however, misapprehends the nature of modern diplomatic consent. By participating in and ratifying these unified declarations, nations actively exercise their sovereignty rather than surrender it. The modern approach recognizes that explicit, collective verbal articulation of legal obligation is a more responsive and democratic mechanism for lawmaking than the passive, often ambiguous accumulation of material state acts.

Based strictly on the texts provided, match each proposition with the accurate characterization of the authors' respective stances.

Passage A
Legal formalism has long posited a sharp, categorical dichotomy between state law—characterized by codified statutes, formal institutional procedures, and centralized mechanisms of enforcement—and customary law, which is frequently depicted as a rigid, organic repository of traditional communal norms. This bifurcated paradigm, however, profoundly obscures the fluid, deeply interconnected realities of legal pluralism. Rather than existing in hermetically sealed spheres of normative authority, state and non-state normative systems continuously intersect and reshape one another in practice. A more nuanced, sociologically informed model recognizes that customary law is rarely a static, pristine survival from a pre-modern past; instead, it is continuously re-articulated and transformed in direct response to state interventions. This structural permeability is most evident when examining the strategic behavior of individuals who navigate everyday disputes. Litigants frequently engage in sophisticated "forum shopping," deliberately mobilizing elements of both state legislation and customary practice to optimize their outcomes, thereby subverting the assumed isolation of these systems from the bottom up. Consequently, the boundary between these legal orders is consistently blurred by the very subjects it supposedly governs. To adequately theorize legal pluralism, scholars must abandon the formalist assumption of normative isolation. They must instead adopt an interactive framework that analyzes how competing legal orders mutually constitute one another through ongoing processes of institutional negotiation and localized contestation.

Passage B
The historiography of colonial administration in sub-Saharan Africa provides a compelling corrective to conventional legal paradigms that neatly separate indigenous custom from colonial state apparatuses. Early anthropological accounts often romanticized African customary law as an authentic, pre-colonial artifact, assuming it survived largely independently of the newly imposed European legal structures. Yet, rigorous empirical historical analyses reveal that the "customary law" rigidly codified during the colonial era was, in fact, largely a joint invention. Colonial administrators and indigenous elites actively collaborated to rigidify previously fluid, negotiable social practices into formal, adjudicable rules, a process designed primarily to facilitate the mechanics of indirect rule and consolidate local authority. By manufacturing these rigid traditions, the colonial state did not merely interact with a preexisting customary sphere; it fundamentally created the very sphere it claimed to be preserving. Thus, the conventional boundaries drawn between state and non-state legal frameworks in historical analyses are empirically inadequate and conceptually misleading. The so-called customary sphere was intrinsically a product of administrative power dynamics and colonial statecraft. Recognizing this profound historical contingency requires scholars to discard the illusion of legal dualism entirely. We must instead embrace a socio-legal framework that views local norms not as autonomous historical survivals, but as highly adaptable constructs constantly forged within the crucible of state domination and local resistance.

Match the structural components and rhetorical functions of Passage A (Left) with their functionally analogous components in Passage B (Right).

The following arguments each commit a distinct variation of circular reasoning (begging the question). Pair each argument with the precise description of how its circularity is constructed.

Read the following excerpt from an essay on nineteenth-century jurisprudence:

In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, German jurist Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut published a famous 1814 manifesto calling for the immediate creation of a unified civil code across all German states. Thibaut argued that a standardized statutory code would eliminate the chaotic patchwork of regional customs and obsolete Roman doctrines, thereby fostering national unity and commercial efficiency. In response, Friedrich Carl von Savigny published his counter-treatise, On the Vocation of Our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence, inaugurating the Historical School of Law. Savigny countered that law is not an arbitrary set of universal abstractions that can be manufactured at will by legislators, but rather an organic expression of a people's historical consciousness—its Volksgeist (spirit of the people)—comparable to its language, grammar, and folklore. To illustrate his claim, Savigny drew an analogy to organic language acquisition: just as artificial universal grammars fail because spoken idioms evolve through centuries of shared communal usage, statutory codes imposed before legal scholars have thoroughly analyzed historical juristic traditions inevitably ossify jurisprudence and sever law from living social customs. Although later critics pointed out that Savigny's veneration of historical continuity neglected the pressing regulatory demands of rapid industrialization, his critique successfully delayed comprehensive German codification until the enactment of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch in 1900.

Based on the excerpt, match each cited textual detail on the left with the specific rhetorical function it serves in the author's analysis on the right.

Below are four independent arguments that each contain a distinct reasoning error involving conditional relationships. Identify the precise nature of the error in each argument by pairing it with its corresponding abstract logical description.

Read the following passage concerning the development of boundary layer theory in fluid dynamics:

In nineteenth-century hydrodynamics, the Navier–Stokes equations successfully formalized the behavior of viscous fluid flow, yet they posed an intractable analytical barrier: exact solutions could not be derived for high-velocity flows past solid boundaries due to nonlinear inertia terms. To circumvent this, theoretical physicists frequently relied on ideal fluid theory (Eulerian mechanics), which assumed zero viscosity and predicted smooth streamlines. However, this theoretical construct produced d’Alembert’s paradox—the mathematically rigorous but physically absurd result that a body moving steadily through a fluid experiences zero drag force.

Ludwig Prandtl resolved this impasse in 1904 by introducing the concept of the boundary layer. Prandtl posited that the physical influence of viscosity is confined entirely to a microscopically thin layer adjacent to the solid surface, whereas the bulk fluid outside this layer behaves virtually as an inviscid, ideal fluid. By segregating the fluid flow into two distinct analytical regimes, Prandtl rendered the governing mathematical equations tractable without discarding viscous drag. Crucially, Prandtl’s framework illuminated the phenomenon of boundary layer separation: when an adverse pressure gradient causes the thin viscous layer to detach from the surface, a wide, turbulent wake forms behind the body. It is this separation-induced wake—rather than skin friction alone—that generates the overwhelming majority of pressure drag on bluff bodies.

While some contemporary theorists dismissed Prandtl’s division as an ad hoc mathematical convenience lacking fundamental physical justification, subsequent schlieren photographic visualization directly substantiated the localized vortex shedding at predicted separation points. Consequently, Prandtl’s insight did not merely provide an empirical approximation; it fundamentally reconciled classical potential flow theory with experimental observation, establishing modern aerodynamics as a predictive science.

Match each cited textual phrase from the passage with the primary rhetorical function it performs in the context of the author's argument.

Match each flawed argument below to the specific subtype of the ad hominem fallacy it demonstrates.

Analyze the natural language arguments below. Match each argument to its corresponding formal symbolic conditional skeleton.

Match each of the following arguments (1-4) with the newly discovered fact that most seriously undermines its reasoning.

Read the four short passages below, drawn from diverse fields of study. Each passage contains a specific error in reasoning. Select the abstract description that best identifies the structural flaw present in each argument.

Read the following scenario and the apparent paradox it presents.

Scenario: A regional agricultural department introduced a new species of insect, the Alerian wasp, to prey on aphids that were severely damaging local apple orchards. One year after the introduction of the wasps, biologists confirmed that the aphid population in the orchards had plummeted by over 80 percent. Paradoxically, the total yield of apples harvested from the orchards this year is significantly lower than it was during the height of the aphid infestation.

Match each of the following candidate statements to its logical effect on the paradox.

Match each paradoxical scenario with the underlying causal mechanism that most effectively resolves its apparent discrepancy.