Examkin

Tüm alıştırma soruları

123 soru

Tüm türler3,960Çoktan seçmeli2,053Çoklu seçim382Doğru / Yanlış424Eşleştirme899Sıralama123Boşluk doldurma38Kısa cevap41
Soru 21Soru →

Arrange the following four disconnected paragraphs into their proper logical sequence to reconstruct a coherent analytical passage regarding space law.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence begins with the historical context (the Outer Space Treaty), follows with the modern commercial challenge, then details the legislative response to that challenge, and concludes with a scholarly critique of that legislative response.
The passage follows a classic 'context, problem, response, evaluation' argumentative structure. The first paragraph establishes the historical status quo. The second introduces a modern complication that conflicts with the status quo, explicitly referencing 'this idealistic framework'. The third outlines a specific legal solution to the complication, referencing 'these commercial pressures'. Finally, the fourth paragraph evaluates and rejects the proposed solution, utilizing the phrase 'such analogies' to refer directly to the preceding text.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the introductory paragraph that establishes the baseline context.
The paragraph discussing the 1967 Outer Space Treaty is selected as the starting point.
It introduces a broad historical premise and is the only paragraph that does not contain transitional phrases relying on antecedent information.
2
Locate the paragraph that introduces a shift or complication to the established context.
The paragraph beginning with 'Recently, however, this idealistic framework...' is placed second.
The demonstrative phrase 'this idealistic framework' refers directly back to the 'lofty ideal' of the Outer Space Treaty described in the first paragraph.
3
Find the paragraph that responds to the complication.
The paragraph beginning with 'Attempting to address these commercial pressures...' is placed third.
The phrase 'these commercial pressures' requires the prior introduction of the commercial space industry's demands, acting as a logical bridge.
4
Identify the concluding paragraph that evaluates the response.
The paragraph starting with 'Legal scholars, conversely, maintain that such analogies...' is placed last.
The phrase 'such analogies' directly critiques the international waters analogy presented in the third paragraph, effectively concluding the debate.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical progression and rhetorical function of paragraphs in an argumentative passage.
Soru 22Soru →

A city planner is reviewing new zoning regulations for a commercial district, which state the following:

* A building will not be granted a Class A permit unless it features a subterranean parking garage.
* Any building featuring a subterranean parking garage must be evaluated by a structural engineer.
* Buildings are exempt from the deep excavation tax only if they are not evaluated by a structural engineer.
* No property is subject to the deep excavation tax unless it requires specialized foundation reinforcements.

Arrange the following logical derivations in the correct sequential order to form a valid deductive chain proving the conclusion: 'If a building is granted a Class A permit, it must require specialized foundation reinforcements.'

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence begins by translating the initial 'unless' condition for a Class A permit, directly linking it to the structural engineer evaluation, contraposing the 'only if' statement to link to the deep excavation tax, contraposing the final 'unless' statement for foundation reinforcements, and finally chaining them all together.
The correct deductive sequence must build a valid transitive chain (A→BA \rightarrow B, B→CB \rightarrow C, C→DC \rightarrow D, D→ED \rightarrow E). We begin with the sufficient condition of the desired conclusion (Class A permit) and correctly translate each rule—using contrapositives for 'unless' and 'only if' statements—to link the necessary conditions sequentially until we arrive at the final necessary condition (specialized foundation reinforcements).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the initial trigger and necessary condition from the first premise.
CA→SPGCA \rightarrow SPG
The first premise uses 'unless'. 'Not A unless B' translates to ∼B→∼A\sim B \rightarrow \sim A, which contraposes to A→BA \rightarrow B. Thus, a Class A Permit (CACA) requires a Subterranean Parking Garage (SPGSPG).
2
Link the first necessary condition to the second premise.
SPG→SESPG \rightarrow SE
The second premise is a direct conditional ('Any A must B'), translating directly to SPG→SESPG \rightarrow SE (Subterranean Parking Garage requires a Structural Engineer).
3
Translate and contrapose the 'only if' statement to continue the chain.
SE→DETSE \rightarrow DET
'A only if B' means A→BA \rightarrow B. 'Exempt only if not evaluated' translates to Exempt→∼SEExempt \rightarrow \sim SE. The contrapositive is SE→∼ExemptSE \rightarrow \sim Exempt, meaning evaluated buildings are subject to the Deep Excavation Tax (DETDET).
4
Translate and contrapose the final 'unless' statement.
DET→SFRDET \rightarrow SFR
'No A unless B' translates to ∼B→∼A\sim B \rightarrow \sim A. The contrapositive is A→BA \rightarrow B. Thus, being subject to the Deep Excavation Tax (DETDET) requires Specialized Foundation Reinforcements (SFRSFR).
5
Transitively chain all conditional statements together.
CA→SFRCA \rightarrow SFR
By linking CA→SPGCA \rightarrow SPG, SPG→SESPG \rightarrow SE, SE→DETSE \rightarrow DET, and DET→SFRDET \rightarrow SFR, we prove the transitive conclusion CA→SFRCA \rightarrow SFR.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining Conditional Statements
Soru 23Soru →

Passage A
Prior to the dawn of the eighteenth century, the English literary and book trade was unequivocally dominated by the Stationers' Company, a powerful printing guild that held a virtual and highly lucrative monopoly over the publishing industry. The enactment of the Statute of Anne in 1710 marked an unprecedented watershed moment in English legal history, fundamentally shifting the conceptual and jurisprudential basis of literary property. Before the passage of this statute, copyright was viewed primarily through the lens of a publisher’s prerogative—a perpetual, transferable right to print and distribute a specific text without regard for the creator's interests. The Statute of Anne, however, explicitly vested the initial copyright directly in the author, limiting the duration of this protective right to a strictly fixed term of years. By formally recognizing the author as the primary locus of literary property and legal ownership, the statute explicitly aimed to "encourage learned men to compose and write useful books." This pivotal legislative pivot not only systematically dismantled the Stationers' perpetual monopoly but also laid the robust conceptual groundwork for the modern, progressive understanding of copyright. It served as a mechanism to promote intellectual and societal progress by financially rewarding creators for their labor. Consequently, legal scholars and historians traditionally view this legislative moment as the definitive birth of authors' rights, representing a profound triumph of individual creative recognition over entrenched corporate control.

Passage B
The deeply entrenched traditional narrative surrounding the Statute of Anne—specifically the notion that it represented a sudden, enlightened, and benevolent recognition of authors' inherent intellectual rights—largely obscures the considerably more pragmatic, regulatory, and cynical motivations behind its passage. While the preamble and explicit text of the statute pay grandiloquent lip service to the noble encouragement of learning and the steadfast protection of authors, the actual legal mechanics of the law served the immediate, pressing interests of the state apparatus. In the wake of the lapsing of earlier, more draconian licensing acts, the government desperately required a novel legal framework to rigorously monitor the press and effectively suppress the dissemination of seditious material. By granting authors a strictly temporary, highly regulated right that necessitated formal registration with the state, the government effectively created a comprehensive, easily accessible registry of publications and those directly responsible for their creation. The "author" in this newly minted legal framework was considerably less a revered, autonomous creative genius and more a necessary, easily identifiable point of legal accountability. Furthermore, the purposefully limited term of copyright ensured that works would eventually fall into the public domain, deliberately preventing the accumulation of dangerous cultural or political power in private, unmonitored hands. Thus, examined critically, the statute functioned less as a victorious declaration of authors' rights and far more as a sophisticated, covert instrument of state information control.

Based on the combined argumentative structure of the two passages, arrange the following rhetorical steps in the chronological order they are deployed to build the overarching academic dialogue:

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical progression begins with establishing the historical baseline, moves to endorsing the conventional view of creator rights, then introduces the pragmatic state-interest counter-narrative, and finally reinterprets the creator as a tool for state accountability.
The correct sequence mirrors the macro-level structural relationship spanning the two texts. The overarching argument moves sequentially from a historical premise (Passage A opening), to a traditional scholarly conclusion (Passage A closing), to a thesis directly challenging that conclusion (Passage B opening), and finally to the deployment of specific evidentiary reinterpretation supporting the challenge (Passage B closing).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Passage A's primary rhetorical sequence.
Passage A begins by outlining the historical baseline (guild monopoly) and concludes by summarizing the traditional view that the subsequent legal reform was a progressive victory for creators.
To map the initial sequence of rhetorical moves in the broader academic dialogue.
2
Analyze Passage B's opening rhetorical maneuver in relation to Passage A.
Passage B immediately challenges Passage A's conclusion, pivoting to state a broad counter-narrative about state regulation and pragmatic motivations.
To pinpoint the macro-structural turning point between the two texts.
3
Examine the specific evidentiary strategy used to conclude Passage B.
Passage B supports its broad counter-narrative by redefining the specific role of the 'author' from a creative genius to a 'point of legal accountability' for the state's surveillance needs.
To identify the final stage of the overall argumentative progression.
4
Chronologically order the identified rhetorical steps.
The sequence moves from the historical baseline (Item 1), to the conventional interpretation (Item 2), to the counter-thesis (Item 3), and concludes with the specific evidentiary reinterpretation (Item 4).
To establish the correct structural order of the academic dialogue across both passages.

Anahtar Kavram

Passage Relationship and Structure
Soru 24Soru →

A deep-sea research station operates under a strict set of environmental regulations. Arrange the following regulatory rules in the exact sequence necessary to form a valid, unbroken deductive chain that establishes the following conclusion: 'If the algae bloom protocol is initiated, then the facility lockdown is lifted.' The sequence must begin with the rule triggered directly by the initiation of the algae bloom protocol and end with the rule that yields the lifting of the lockdown.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct deductive chain sequence is: 1) The algae bloom protocol... 2) Failing to deactivate... 3) Unless delta-toxins... 4) A lack of confirmed... 5) Confirming ecosystem...
The correct sequence forms an unbroken transitive chain (A -> B, B -> C, C -> D, D -> E, E -> F) by properly translating complex conditional indicators ('only if', 'guarantees that', 'unless', 'sufficient to prevent', 'impossible without') and utilizing their logical contrapositives to align the terms.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the target conclusion that must be proved by the deductive chain.
The target conclusion is: Algae Bloom Protocol Initiated -> Facility Lockdown Lifted.
This establishes the starting sufficient condition (Algae Bloom) and the final necessary condition (Lockdown Lifted) for the sequence.
2
Locate the premise containing the starting sufficient condition and diagram it.
Rule 1 translates to: Algae Bloom Initiated -> Bioluminescence Peaks.
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition. This provides the first required link in the chain.
3
Find the premise that has 'Bioluminescence Peaks' as its sufficient condition (or its contrapositive).
Rule 2 translates to: Scrubbers Not Deactivated -> Bioluminescence Does Not Peak. Its contrapositive is: Bioluminescence Peaks -> Scrubbers Deactivated.
The word 'guarantees' introduces a sufficient condition. Forming the contrapositive links this rule securely to the outcome of Rule 1.
4
Find the premise that has 'Scrubbers Deactivated' as its sufficient condition.
Rule 3 translates to: Toxins Not Purged -> Scrubbers Cannot Be Deactivated. Its contrapositive is: Scrubbers Deactivated -> Toxins Purged.
The term modified by 'unless' becomes the necessary condition, while the remainder is negated to form the sufficient condition.
5
Find the premise that has 'Toxins Purged' as its sufficient condition.
Rule 4 translates to: Stability Not Confirmed -> Toxins Not Purged. Its contrapositive is: Toxins Purged -> Stability Confirmed.
The phrase 'is sufficient to' directly identifies the sufficient condition. Forming the contrapositive links it to the previous step's outcome.
6
Find the final premise linking to the target necessary condition.
Rule 5 translates to: Stability Confirmed -> Lockdown Lifted.
The phrase 'impossible without' means the latter is required for the former, yielding the final link and proving the target conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying formal logic indicators, forming contrapositives, and chaining transitive conditional statements to draw valid deductions.
Soru 25Soru →

Arrange the following five argumentative statements into their most logical sequence, proceeding from foundational evidence to the intermediate conclusion, through secondary evidence, and finally to the main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence begins with the foundational premises defining microlensing and its application to rogue planets, leads to the intermediate conclusion that this method allows detection of these planets, introduces the secondary premise about verifying theoretical models, and ends with the main conclusion advocating for survey funding.
A well-structured logical argument flows from basic factual premises to derived claims, and finally to the ultimate recommendation. In this sequence, the definition of microlensing and its application to rogue planets provide the factual basis. These facts support the intermediate conclusion that astronomers can detect these planets. This intermediate conclusion is then combined with the secondary premise about the importance of verifying theoretical models, ultimately justifying the main conclusion that funding for these surveys is crucial.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the primary premises that introduce the core physical concepts.
The statements defining microlensing and applying it to rogue planets form the initial evidential base.
Arguments must establish basic facts before drawing logical inferences from them.
2
Locate the intermediate conclusion derived directly from the primary premises.
The statement beginning with 'Consequently' serves as the intermediate conclusion, deducing that rogue planets can be detected based on the initial physical facts.
An intermediate conclusion synthesizes early evidence to create a new, derived premise for the rest of the argument.
3
Identify secondary premises that connect the intermediate conclusion to the final goal.
The statement explaining the importance of detecting these planets for verifying theoretical models bridges the gap to the final conclusion.
Additional context is needed to explain why the capability established in the intermediate conclusion matters.
4
Identify the main conclusion.
The normative statement beginning with 'Therefore' and advocating for survey funding is the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is the ultimate point of the argument, supported by all prior premises and intermediate conclusions.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 26Soru →

Arrange the following statements to form a continuous logical chain that demonstrates how a sufficient assumption bridges the logical gap to justify the conclusion. The sequence must trace the conditional path from the initial trigger to the final outcome, ending with the main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical order begins with the flat tax premise, moves to the simplified tax code intermediate premise, follows with the sufficient assumption about disposable income, and ends with the final conclusion.
A valid deductive argument using a sufficient assumption requires a closed logical loop. The correct sequence starts with the initial condition (flat tax), connects to the intermediate effect (simplified code), bridges to the final effect via the sufficient assumption (reduced reliance means more disposable income), and finally states the conclusion that logically follows from this chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion.
The statement starting with 'Therefore' is the conclusion and must be placed last.
Conclusions are derived from premises and assumptions, so they conclude the logical sequence.
2
Identify the starting premise.
The statement about 'Implementing a flat tax system' introduces the initial condition of the argument.
In a continuous logical chain, the sequence begins with the independent trigger condition.
3
Find the connecting intermediate premise.
The statement linking a 'simplified national tax code' to a reduction in 'reliance on professional tax preparation services' naturally follows the first premise.
This establishes the middle link of the conditional chain.
4
Identify the sufficient assumption.
The statement connecting the reduction in 'reliance on professional tax preparation services' to an 'increase in citizens' disposable income' acts as the assumption.
This assumption bridges the final logical gap, making the conclusion logically valid.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions via Deductive Chains
Soru 27Soru →

Consider the following argument:

Urban policy analyst: Municipalities frequently implement peak-period congestion surcharges on arterial corridors under the belief that tolling will directly curtail net metropolitan emissions. However, commuters attempting to avoid high tolls divert to unmonitored residential streets. This diversion creates extended stop-and-go driving conditions that significantly elevate fuel consumption per mile. Consequently, arterial congestion surcharges fail to produce a net reduction in citywide vehicle emissions. Transportation departments should therefore refrain from designating peak-period arterial surcharges as their primary clean-air measure.

Based on the analyst's argument, arrange the following claims in order of their logical progression, starting from the initial behavioral premise, moving through the intermediate reasoning, and culminating in the argument's main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence begins with the behavioral premise regarding commuter route diversion, followed by the causal premise explaining elevated fuel consumption, leading to the intermediate conclusion that surcharges fail to lower citywide emissions, and finishing with the ultimate main conclusion that transportation departments should not adopt such surcharges as their primary clean-air policy.
The argument builds a sequential logical chain: first, it establishes that commuters divert to secondary streets (initial behavioral premise); second, it explains that this diversion increases fuel consumption via stop-and-go driving (causal premise); third, from these two points it infers that arterial surcharges do not reduce net emissions (intermediate conclusion); and finally, it utilizes this intermediate finding to support its ultimate normative recommendation that agencies should not make surcharges their primary clean-air policy (main conclusion).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational behavioral and physical premises in the stimulus.
The initial premise establishes that commuters divert onto residential streets, and the linked causal premise establishes that this diversion increases per-mile fuel consumption.
Foundational premises provide the raw factual observations upon which the author builds subsequent claims.
2
Locate the intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
The claim that arterial surcharges fail to produce a net reduction in citywide vehicle emissions is supported by the premises but is not the final stopping point of the author's argument.
An intermediate conclusion receives support from basic premises and in turn acts as evidence for a broader conclusion.
3
Determine the overarching main conclusion of the argument.
The prescriptive statement that transportation departments should refrain from designating peak-period arterial surcharges as their primary clean-air measure represents the ultimate takeaway.
The main conclusion is the final destination of the argument, receiving support from the intermediate conclusion without being used to support any further claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing Foundational Premises, Subsidiary Conclusions, and the Ultimate Main Conclusion
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 28Soru →

Read the following excerpt from a passage about the Maya civilization:

'The breakdown of the Maya civilization in the Terminal Classic period has been increasingly linked by climatologists to a prolonged drought, though the mechanism was complex. A reduction in regional rainfall initially caused a significant decrease in agricultural yields, particularly of maize, the staple crop. This agricultural shortfall quickly led to a severe contraction in the food supply for the densely populated urban centers. As urban populations faced widespread malnutrition, civil unrest fomented, which in turn weakened the political authority of the ruling elites. Sensing the vulnerability of the central administration, rival city-states escalated warfare to secure dwindling resources, a conflict that ultimately resulted in the total abandonment of the major urban centers.'

Based explicitly on the causal chain described in the passage, arrange the following events in the correct chronological sequence from the initial consequence of the drought to the event immediately preceding the abandonment of the urban centers.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence is: 1) A decline in the harvest of staple crops, 2) A contraction of the urban food supply, 3) The emergence of civil unrest among the populace, 4) The diminishing of the ruling elites' political authority, 5) An escalation in military conflicts over resources.
The correct order strictly follows the explicit causal markers provided in the passage: drought causes a yield decrease -> the yield decrease causes a food contraction -> the food contraction causes unrest -> the unrest causes weakened elite authority -> the weakened authority causes warfare.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the initial cause and its immediate effect from the text.
The text states 'reduction in regional rainfall' caused a 'decrease in agricultural yields'.
This establishes the beginning of the explicit causal chain.
2
Trace the subsequent effect of the agricultural shortfall.
The shortfall led to 'contraction in the food supply'.
This links the decline in harvest to the urban food issues.
3
Determine the consequence of the food supply contraction (malnutrition).
Widespread malnutrition fomented 'civil unrest'.
This explicitly connects the population's physical hardship to social instability.
4
Identify the political outcome of the civil unrest.
The civil unrest 'weakened the political authority of the ruling elites'.
This links the social instability to political vulnerability.
5
Find the final event resulting from the political vulnerability.
The vulnerability of the administration led rival city-states to 'escalated warfare'.
This completes the causal chain up to the point just before the abandonment.

Anahtar Kavram

Sequencing intermediate steps in an explicitly detailed multi-step causal chain.
Soru 29Soru →

Below are four paragraphs of a passage discussing customary international law, presented out of order. Based on the logical transitions and the rhetorical relationships between the paragraphs, arrange them in their correct original sequence.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence is: Introduction of the traditional view, Introduction of the challenge (instant custom), Critique of the challenge, and Synthesis/Conclusion.
The passage follows a classic thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure. It must logically begin with the traditional baseline, introduce the new opposing theory ('instant custom'), provide the scholarly critique of that new theory, and finally conclude by proposing a compromise or middle ground between the two extremes.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the introductory paragraph.
The paragraph beginning 'For decades...' acts as the introduction because it lacks transitional phrases that point backward and establishes the foundational definitions.
An academic passage generally begins by establishing the baseline context before introducing complications.
2
Locate the paragraph that introduces a complication to the baseline.
The paragraph beginning 'However, the advent of rapid technological advancement...' directly follows the introduction by challenging 'this traditional framework'.
The pronoun 'this' and the contrasting conjunction 'However' require the traditional framework to have been immediately established beforehand.
3
Find the paragraph that reacts to or evaluates the complication.
The paragraph beginning 'Despite its appeal... this theory of instant custom' evaluates the theory just proposed.
The explicit reference to 'this theory' means the theory must have been introduced in the immediately preceding text.
4
Identify the concluding paragraph.
The paragraph starting with 'Ultimately, a middle ground must be found...' serves as the resolution.
Concluding paragraphs in this style of passage typically synthesize the competing viewpoints discussed earlier.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical Structure and Organization: Relationship Between Paragraphs
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 30Soru →

Below are five components of a logical argument regarding digital ownership. Determine the structural chain of reasoning by ordering these statements from the initial foundational premise, through the intermediate conclusions, to the final main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence is: 1) Lack of physical degradation, 2) Indistinguishability of used and new copies, 3) Primary market price collapse, 4) Destruction of financial incentives, 5) Legislative opposition to resale frameworks.
The argument forms a strict causal chain. It begins with the factual premise that digital goods do not degrade. This directly supports the first intermediate conclusion: used digital goods are indistinguishable from new ones. This 'quality parity' then forces the second intermediate conclusion: a price collapse for new goods, because consumers won't pay a premium. The 'price collapse' in turn supports the third intermediate conclusion: the destruction of financial incentives for creators. Finally, this negative outcome justifies the main conclusion: legislatures must oppose laws allowing digital resale.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational premise.
The statement about digital assets not experiencing wear is the starting point.
It states an independent fact that does not rely on any other statement in the stimulus for support.
2
Identify the ultimate main conclusion.
The prescriptive statement that legislatures must oppose unrestricted resale is the final conclusion.
It represents the author's primary goal and relies on all the negative consequences outlined in the other statements to justify its normative stance.
3
Trace the causal chain connecting the premise to the conclusion.
No degradation -> Indistinguishable quality -> Price collapse -> Destroyed incentives.
Each intermediate step contains explicit referencing language (e.g., 'this quality parity', 'This primary market price collapse') that dictates its exact position in the sequence relative to the other statements.

Anahtar Kavram

Tracing complex logical structures and differentiating between foundational premises, intermediate conclusions, and main conclusions.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 31Soru →

A cybersecurity firm's incident response protocol is governed by several conditional rules. To establish a valid deductive chain proving that 'If an anomaly is detected in the network, then the CEO must be notified,' arrange the following protocol rules in their correct logical sequence from the initial sufficient trigger to the final necessary outcome.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct deductive chain starts with the detection of an anomaly and ends with notifying the CEO, ordering the rules as follows: 1) Any detection of an anomaly... 2) A Level 1 diagnostic is not initiated unless... 3) The automated defense system... 4) The CISO is alerted only if...
The correct sequence translates the English rules into a continuous transitive chain: Anomaly -> Diagnostic -> Lockdown -> CISO -> CEO. Each step perfectly links the necessary condition of the previous statement as the sufficient condition of the next, utilizing proper translations for 'requires', 'unless', 'sufficient', and 'only if'.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the initial trigger from the prompt ('anomaly is detected') and find the rule that uses it as a sufficient condition.
Rule: 'Any detection of an anomaly... requires the initiation of a Level 1 diagnostic.' (Anomaly -> Diagnostic).
The prompt requires starting the chain with the anomaly detection. 'Requires' indicates the diagnostic is necessary.
2
Find the rule that uses the necessary condition from the first step (Diagnostic) as its sufficient condition.
Rule: 'A Level 1 diagnostic is not initiated unless the automated defense system triggers a full lockdown.' (Diagnostic -> Lockdown).
The logical translation of 'Not A unless B' is 'If A then B', which perfectly chains from the previous step.
3
Find the rule that uses the necessary condition from the second step (Lockdown) as its sufficient condition.
Rule: 'The automated defense system triggering a full lockdown is sufficient to alert the CISO.' (Lockdown -> CISO).
The word 'sufficient' explicitly marks the lockdown as the trigger for alerting the CISO.
4
Find the rule that concludes the chain with the final necessary outcome ('CEO must be notified').
Rule: 'The CISO is alerted only if the CEO is formally notified...' (CISO -> CEO).
The phrase 'only if' introduces the necessary condition, providing the final required outcome of the chain.

Anahtar Kavram

Translating formal logic indicators (requires, unless, sufficient, only if) to build multi-step conditional chains.
Soru 32Soru →

Arrange the following conditional statements in the correct logical sequence to form an unbroken deductive chain, starting from the initial trigger 'the new software is installed' and ending with the final outcome 'the quarterly budget is exceeded'.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence connects each necessary condition to the next sufficient condition to form the chain: Software is installed -> Server downtime occurs -> Customer complaints increase -> IT department works overtime -> Quarterly budget is exceeded.
The correct sequence accurately translates all conditional indicators into a valid transitive chain. 'Whenever' introduces a sufficient condition (Software -> Downtime). 'Is sufficient to' introduces a sufficient condition (Downtime -> Complaints). 'Requires' introduces a necessary condition (Complaints -> Overtime). 'Only if' introduces a necessary condition (Overtime -> Budget). Connecting these end-to-end forms an unbroken logical path.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the starting trigger and the final outcome from the prompt.
Start: 'Software is installed'. End: 'Budget is exceeded'.
Establishing the endpoints of the deductive chain helps anchor the ordering process.
2
Translate each English statement into formal 'If -> Then' logic using the conditional indicators.
Link 1: Software -> Downtime. Link 2: Downtime -> Complaints. Link 3: Complaints -> Overtime. Link 4: Overtime -> Budget.
Translating indicators like 'whenever', 'sufficient', 'requires', and 'only if' reveals the underlying logical direction of each statement.
3
Connect the statements by matching the necessary condition (right side) of one to the sufficient condition (left side) of the next.
The chain perfectly aligns as: Software -> Downtime -> Complaints -> Overtime -> Budget.
A valid transitive deductive chain must link overlapping conditions in a continuous sequence without reversing any relationships.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming and linking conditional statements (Transitive Property)
Soru 33Soru →

Arrange the following argumentative statements into a logical sequence, starting with the primary factual evidence, moving through the intermediate conclusions, and ending with the final main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The logical sequence begins with the primary factual evidence (the structural assessment), which leads to the first intermediate conclusion (the risk of collapse). This vulnerability leads to a second intermediate conclusion (the building being unsafe), which ultimately supports the main prescriptive conclusion (the requirement to close the library).
A complete logical argument flows from unsupported factual premises to intermediate conclusions, culminating in the main conclusion. The structural assessment provides the foundational fact (cracks exist). The argument infers a physical consequence from this (risk of collapse). It then infers a practical implication of that consequence (unsafe for public use). Finally, it provides the ultimate prescriptive recommendation (close the library), which is supported by the entire chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The statement requiring the city to close the library is the main conclusion.
It uses the conclusion indicator 'Thus' and prescribes an ultimate action that the rest of the argument is built to support.
2
Identify the primary factual evidence (basic premise).
The statement regarding the structural assessment is the primary premise.
It states an independent, observed fact (severe foundation cracks) that does not rely on any other claim to be proven.
3
Order the intermediate conclusions to bridge the premise to the main conclusion.
The remaining statements flow logically from physical cause to safety effect: assessment -> risk of collapse -> unsafe for public use.
The cracks directly cause the risk of collapse. In turn, the risk of collapse is precisely what makes the building unsafe. This seamlessly connects the initial observation to the final closure mandate.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying basic premises, intermediate conclusions, and main conclusions to evaluate logical flow.
Soru 34Soru →

According to the recently ratified Global Agricultural Trade Pact, a nation is permitted to export genetically modified crops only if it maintains a centralized agricultural registry. Furthermore, maintaining such a registry requires the nation to pass the Environmental Baseline Audit. No nation passes the Environmental Baseline Audit without successfully implementing strict cross-pollination containment protocols. Finally, establishing an independent monitoring commission is prerequisite to successfully implementing these strict cross-pollination containment protocols.

Based on the rules provided, arrange the following conditions in the correct logical sequence to form an unbroken, valid deductive chain. Begin with the initial sufficient condition for the sequence and conclude with the final necessary condition.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence from initial sufficient condition to final necessary condition is: Exporting crops → Maintaining registry → Passing audit → Implementing containment → Establishing commission.
The correct sequence accurately translates each conditional indicator to form an unbroken deductive chain. 'Only if' makes the registry necessary for exporting; 'requires' makes the audit necessary for the registry; 'No... without' makes containment necessary for the audit; and 'prerequisite to' makes the commission necessary for containment. Linking these yields: Export → Registry → Audit → Containment → Commission.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first rule involving 'only if'.
Exporting crops → Maintaining registry
The indicator 'only if' introduces a necessary condition. Thus, exporting is the sufficient condition that guarantees a registry is maintained.
2
Translate the second rule involving 'requires'.
Maintaining registry → Passing audit
The word 'requires' introduces a necessary condition. Therefore, maintaining the registry guarantees that the audit has been passed.
3
Translate the third rule involving 'No... without'.
Passing audit → Implementing containment
The phrase 'No X without Y' means Y is necessary for X. Passing the audit is sufficient to know that containment protocols are implemented.
4
Translate the fourth rule involving 'is prerequisite to'.
Implementing containment → Establishing commission
A 'prerequisite' is a necessary condition that must occur first. Therefore, implementing containment protocols guarantees that a commission has been established.
5
Synthesize the individual statements into a single deductive chain.
Exporting crops → Maintaining registry → Passing audit → Implementing containment → Establishing commission
By linking the shared sufficient and necessary conditions from each translated rule, an unbroken sequence is formed.

Anahtar Kavram

Translating and chaining conditional statements using varied indicators (only if, requires, no...without, prerequisite to).
Soru 35Soru →

A software company has established the following protocol for deploying new applications:

- The code is merged into the main branch only if a beta testing phase is scheduled.
- If the software passes the final security audit, the code is merged into the main branch.
- A beta testing phase is scheduled only if the marketing team has been notified.

Arrange the following events in the correct logical sequence, starting with the initial sufficient condition (the trigger) and ending with the final necessary condition.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence is: The software passes the final security audit, followed by the code being merged, followed by a beta testing phase being scheduled, and finally the marketing team being notified.
By translating the conditional statements accurately (Audit -> Merged; Merged -> Beta; Beta -> Marketing), we can form a valid transitive chain from the initial trigger to the final requirement: Audit -> Merged -> Beta -> Marketing.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the initial sufficient condition that does not depend on any other event occurring first.
The rule 'If the software passes the final security audit...' makes passing the audit the starting trigger.
The word 'if' introduces a sufficient condition.
2
Determine the necessary condition for the first event.
Passing the audit requires that 'the code is merged into the main branch'.
The result of the 'if' clause forms the necessary condition.
3
Link the second event to its own necessary condition.
The code is merged 'only if a beta testing phase is scheduled', linking the code merge to beta testing.
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition.
4
Link the third event to its necessary condition.
A beta testing phase is scheduled 'only if the marketing team has been notified'.
This establishes the final link in the transitive logic chain.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining Conditional Statements
Soru 36Soru →

An argument concerning the impact of new trade legislation can be constructed from the statements below. Arrange the statements to reflect their logical progression in the reasoning chain, starting with the foundational premise, moving chronologically through the intermediate conclusions, and ending with the ultimate main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical order begins with the foundational premise about the new tariffs, followed by the manufacturers' reaction to shift contracts, the resulting capacity overwhelm, and finally the ultimate conclusion that this will cause production delays.
The logical structure of the argument forms a direct causal chain. It begins with an unsupported factual premise (the new tariffs). This premise supports a first intermediate conclusion (manufacturers will shift contracts to avoid tariffs). That shift supports a second intermediate conclusion (the domestic foundries will be overwhelmed by the sudden shift). Finally, this lack of capacity supports the ultimate main conclusion (the entire industry will experience short-term production delays).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational premise that requires no support from other statements.
The statement detailing the provisions of the Trade Regulatory Act ('The recently enacted...') is the starting factual basis.
Foundational premises provide the grounding facts for the argument without relying on other claims.
2
Determine the immediate logical consequence of the foundational premise.
The statement regarding manufacturers transitioning their procurement contracts to domestic foundries.
The text explicitly states this shift is done 'In order to circumvent these exorbitant tariffs', directly linking it as an effect of the new law.
3
Identify the subsequent effect of the first intermediate conclusion.
The statement explaining that this massive reallocation of contracts will overwhelm domestic capacity.
The phrase 'This immediate and massive reallocation' refers back to the manufacturers' transition, placing it next in the causal chain.
4
Isolate the ultimate claim that the entire chain is built to support.
The statement predicting that the Trade Regulatory Act will cause short-term production delays.
This statement represents the final deduction drawn from the sequence of events; it is the ultimate point the author is trying to prove.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the structural hierarchy and causal chain of a logical argument.
Soru 37Soru →

A city planner is outlining the causal dependencies of a proposed urban renewal project. Order the following propositions to establish a continuous, unbroken logical chain proving that passing the new zoning ordinance guarantees the expansion of the rail network.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical progression starts with the contrapositive of the zoning approval failure (Ordinance → Construction), follows directly to the density increase (Construction → Density), uses the contrapositive of the retail store failure (Density → Retail), and concludes directly with the transit expansion (Retail → Transit).
The correct sequence successfully maps the conditional relationships, translating contrapositives where necessary, to form a continuous transitive chain. It moves from Ordinance → Construction (via contrapositive), then Construction → Density (direct translation), then Density → Retail (via contrapositive), and finally Retail → Transit Expansion (direct translation).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the required starting trigger and the final necessary outcome from the stem.
The chain must start with 'passing the new zoning ordinance' and end with 'the expansion of the rail network'.
Establishing the endpoints determines the proper direction of the transitive deductive chain.
2
Diagram the statement containing the starting trigger, applying the contrapositive rule if necessary.
The statement about a failure to approve construction indicates (No Construction → No Ordinance). The contrapositive is (Ordinance → Construction).
This correctly provides the first positive link from the starting trigger.
3
Find the statement where the necessary condition of the first link becomes the sufficient condition.
The statement about approving construction directly translates to (Construction → Density Increase).
This extends the chain to its second step via the transitive property.
4
Diagram the remaining statements to complete the path to the final outcome.
The statement regarding the retail conglomerate deciding against opening translates to (No Retail → No Density), which becomes (Density → Retail) via contrapositive. Finally, the statement about the opening of a flagship store translates directly to (Retail → Transit Expansion).
This completes the unbroken logical chain: Ordinance → Construction → Density Increase → Retail Store → Transit Expansion.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements and Contrapositives
Soru 38Soru →

A municipal oversight committee has established the following regulatory framework for new infrastructure contracts:

- A contract mandates union labor only if it bypasses the secondary financial audit.
- Failure to secure comprehensive risk insurance precludes a contract from receiving fast-track funding approval.
- Incorporating an extended public comment period is sufficient to delay the initial project timeline.
- Securing comprehensive risk insurance requires that the contract mandate union labor.
- No contract bypasses the secondary financial audit unless it incorporates an extended public comment period.

Assume a new infrastructure contract receives fast-track funding approval. Based exclusively on the framework above, arrange the following outcomes in the exact logical sequence they must follow to form an unbroken deductive chain of necessary conditions, from the immediate requirement to the final outcome.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence of necessary conditions is: secures comprehensive risk insurance, mandates union labor, bypasses the secondary financial audit, incorporates an extended public comment period, and finally, the initial project timeline is delayed.
The sequence is built by accurately translating complex conditional indicators into a transitive logical chain. The trigger is 'fast-track funding approval' (F). The contrapositive of the second rule yields F -> Insurance (I). The fourth rule yields I -> Union Labor (UL). The first rule yields UL -> Bypass Audit (BA). The fifth rule yields BA -> Extended Public Comment (EPC). The third rule yields EPC -> Delayed Timeline (DT). Stringing these together gives the unbroken chain: F -> I -> UL -> BA -> EPC -> DT.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the trigger condition and find its immediate necessary outcome using the second rule.
Fast-track funding approval -> Secures comprehensive risk insurance.
The rule 'Failure to secure comprehensive risk insurance precludes a contract from receiving fast-track funding approval' translates to: (~Insurance -> ~Fast-track). Taking the contrapositive yields the valid deduction: (Fast-track -> Insurance).
2
Find the necessary condition for securing comprehensive risk insurance using the fourth rule.
Secures comprehensive risk insurance -> Mandates union labor.
The rule states that securing insurance 'requires' union labor. The term 'requires' always introduces a necessary condition.
3
Determine the necessary condition for mandating union labor using the first rule.
Mandates union labor -> Bypasses secondary financial audit.
The rule uses the phrase 'only if', which introduces a necessary condition. Therefore, 'mandates union labor only if it bypasses the audit' translates to: (Union labor -> Bypasses audit).
4
Identify the necessary condition for bypassing the secondary financial audit using the fifth rule.
Bypasses secondary financial audit -> Incorporates extended public comment period.
The rule structure 'No A unless B' translates logically to 'If A, then B'. Thus, bypassing the audit guarantees the incorporation of the extended public comment period: (Bypasses audit -> Extended public comment).
5
Find the final outcome resulting from the extended public comment period using the third rule.
Incorporates extended public comment period -> Initial project timeline is delayed.
The rule states that the comment period is 'sufficient' to delay the timeline, forming the final link in the chain: (Extended public comment -> Timeline delayed).

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements

Alternatif Yöntem

Instead of diagramming all the rules in isolation first, you can use the 'chain-building' method: start explicitly with the trigger ('fast-track funding approval'), and scan the text specifically for that exact term or its logical negation to find the first link. Repeat this process for each new necessary condition you discover.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 39Soru →

An argument concerning the philosophical demarcation of science can be constructed from the five statements below. Arrange the statements in their logical sequence, tracing the reasoning chain from the initial background context and foundational premise, through the intermediate conclusion and secondary premise, culminating in the argument's main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence begins by establishing the background context of empirical falsifiability, pivots to the practical limitations of testing string theory, deduces the intermediate conclusion that string theory fails the testability requirement, introduces a countering premise about string theory's theoretical rigor, and culminates in the main conclusion that the falsifiability standard itself is too restrictive.
This sequence correctly maps the structural flow of the argument. It starts with the established standard (background context), presents a factual challenge regarding string theory (premise), deduces that string theory fails the standard (intermediate conclusion), introduces string theory's theoretical strengths (counter-premise), and resolves the tension by concluding that the standard itself is inadequate (main conclusion).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational background context.
The statement detailing the standard demarcation of empirical falsifiability serves as the introduction.
It establishes the general philosophical rule that the specific case study will later challenge.
2
Locate the primary premise introducing the specific case study.
The statement about the energy levels required to test string theory is the primary premise.
The word 'However' pivots the argument from the general rule to a specific factual limitation.
3
Identify the intermediate conclusion derived from the primary premise.
The statement concluding that string theory fails to produce testable predictions is the intermediate conclusion.
The phrase 'Because of this practical limitation' explicitly links this deduction back to the preceding premise regarding energy levels.
4
Identify the secondary premise that complicates the intermediate conclusion.
The statement highlighting string theory's mathematical rigor and integration of physics frameworks follows the intermediate conclusion.
The phrase 'Despite this predictive failure' connects directly to the intermediate conclusion, presenting a counter-consideration.
5
Determine the ultimate main conclusion.
The statement declaring that the strict falsifiability standard is overly restrictive is the main conclusion.
This statement synthesizes the conflict between string theory's predictive failure and its theoretical merit to argue for a broader philosophical shift, representing the author's final position.

Anahtar Kavram

Tracing the logical structure of a complex argument by differentiating between background context, premises, intermediate conclusions, and the ultimate main conclusion.
Soru 40Soru →

A hospital credentialing committee has established a set of rules for surgeons seeking to perform a newly approved neuro-robotic procedure. Order the following propositions to construct a logically valid, unbroken chain of deduction from the sufficient condition of a surgeon being granted full procedural privileges to the necessary condition of the hospital paying an enhanced liability surcharge.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence translates to: Privileges → Simulation → Certification → Residency → Surcharge.
To construct a valid deductive chain from 'full procedural privileges' to 'enhanced liability surcharge', we must logically connect the sufficient and necessary conditions of each statement. The first proposition uses 'only if' to establish 'procedural privileges' as a sufficient condition for 'biometric simulation' (Privileges → Simulation). The second proposition uses 'guarantees' with negative terms; its contrapositive establishes that passing the simulation requires certification (Simulation → Certification). The third proposition uses 'cannot... unless' to show that certification requires a residency (Certification → Residency). Finally, the fourth proposition states that the residency is a sufficient trigger for the surcharge (Residency → Surcharge). Connecting these links yields the unbroken chain: Privileges → Simulation → Certification → Residency → Surcharge.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the starting sufficient condition and its corresponding necessary condition.
The initial sufficient condition is 'granted full procedural privileges'. The proposition '...granted full procedural privileges only if they have successfully passed the rigorous biometric simulation' establishes the first link: Privileges → Simulation.
To build a forward deductive chain, we must start with the initial trigger specified in the prompt.
2
Find the proposition where 'passing the biometric simulation' acts as the sufficient condition.
The proposition 'Failing to hold specialized board certification... guarantees that a surgeon will not pass the rigorous biometric simulation' translates to ~Certification → ~Simulation. The contrapositive is Simulation → Certification.
The sufficient condition of the next link must identically match the necessary condition of the previous link (Simulation) to maintain an unbroken chain.
3
Find the proposition where 'holding specialized board certification' acts as the sufficient condition.
The proposition 'A surgeon cannot hold specialized board certification... unless they have completed the mandatory peer-reviewed residency' translates to Certification → Residency.
The 'unless' indicator modifies the necessary condition, meaning the remaining negated statement becomes the sufficient condition.
4
Find the proposition linking the residency to the final required outcome.
The proposition 'The completion of the mandatory peer-reviewed residency... is sufficient to require the hospital to pay an enhanced liability surcharge' translates to Residency → Surcharge.
This establishes the final necessary condition required by the prompt, completing the valid deduction.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chain Construction and Contrapositives
ÖncekiSayfa 2 / 7Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin