Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 481Soru →

Match each conditional statement regarding corporate merger regulations on the left with its logically valid contrapositive on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The merger will be approved only if the antitrust division grants clearance and the competing firm withdraws its lawsuit.
Approval of the merger requires that the antitrust division grants clearance or the competing firm withdraws its lawsuit.
The merger is guaranteed to be approved if the antitrust division grants clearance and the competing firm withdraws its lawsuit.
The antitrust division granting clearance or the competing firm withdrawing its lawsuit is sufficient for the merger to be approved.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The logically valid pairs map combinations of necessary/sufficient conditions with their De Morgan's Law contrapositives. 'Approved only if... and...' pairs with 'If not... or not..., not approved'. 'Requires that... or...' pairs with 'If fails to... and refuses to..., not approved'. 'Guaranteed to be approved if... and...' pairs with 'If not approved, then either not... or not...'. '...or... is sufficient for' pairs with 'If not approved, it must be that failed to... and failed to...'.
Each correct pair properly executes the two mandatory steps of forming a complex contrapositive: (1) flipping the necessary and sufficient conditions while negating both sides, and (2) applying De Morgan's Laws to switch any negated 'AND' operator to an 'OR' operator, and vice versa.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Define variables for the three propositions to systematically evaluate the logical structures without relying on English syntax.
Let M = 'Merger is approved'. Let C = 'Antitrust division grants clearance'. Let W = 'Competing firm withdraws lawsuit'.
Using symbolic logic prevents confusion caused by complex phrasing and varied conditional trigger words (only if, requires, sufficient, guaranteed).
2
Translate the four left-side conditional statements into formal logic.
Statement 1: M → (C and W). Statement 2: M → (C or W). Statement 3: (C and W) → M. Statement 4: (C or W) → M.
Accurately identifying necessary versus sufficient conditions is mandatory before forming a contrapositive.
3
Form the logically valid contrapositive for each translated statement by reversing the arrow and negating both sides.
Contrapositive 1: ~(C and W) → ~M. Contrapositive 2: ~(C or W) → ~M. Contrapositive 3: ~M → ~(C and W). Contrapositive 4: ~M → ~(C or W).
The contrapositive is the only inherently valid inference that can be drawn from a standard conditional statement.
4
Apply De Morgan's Laws to distribute the negations across the compound 'AND' / 'OR' conditions.
Contrapositive 1: (~C or ~W) → ~M. Contrapositive 2: (~C and ~W) → ~M. Contrapositive 3: ~M → (~C or ~W). Contrapositive 4: ~M → (~C and ~W). These directly map to the four statements on the right.
Negating a conjunction (AND) always yields a disjunction (OR), and negating a disjunction yields a conjunction.

Anahtar Kavram

Forming Complex Contrapositives using De Morgan's Laws
Soru 482Soru →

Epidemiologist: Some policymakers advocate restricting our limited antiviral stockpiles exclusively to the most vulnerable demographics, reasoning that this approach most efficiently reduces immediate mortality. This restriction strategy, however, will ultimately compromise the safety of the very population it aims to shield. Allowing a pathogen to circulate unabated among low-risk groups ensures an exponentially higher number of viral replication events than would occur under a universal distribution model. Consequently, the targeted restriction strategy will dramatically accelerate the pathogen's overall rate of mutation. Genetic errors, after all, occur at a fixed frequency per replication event. And an accelerated mutation rate drastically increases the likelihood that a treatment-resistant strain will emerge to render the stockpiled antivirals useless.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the epidemiologist's argument by the statement that the targeted restriction strategy will dramatically accelerate the pathogen's overall rate of mutation?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion drawn from claims about viral replication frequencies, and it serves to support the overall conclusion that the proposed policy will ultimately harm the population it aims to protect.

Cevap

The statement acts as a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion. It is logically drawn from premises regarding viral replication and fixed error frequencies, and it is used to support the argument's overarching main conclusion that the policy will ultimately compromise the safety of the vulnerable population.
The correct answer accurately maps the two-fold functional role of the target statement. First, the structural indicator 'Consequently' and the surrounding evidence regarding viral replication and genetic errors demonstrate that the target statement is a conclusion drawn from premises. Second, this statement is not the endpoint of the argument; rather, the accelerated mutation rate is utilized as evidence to prove that a resistant strain will emerge, which ultimately validates the main conclusion that the policy will harm the vulnerable population. Thus, it functions perfectly as a subsidiary conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is located in the second sentence: 'This restriction strategy, however, will ultimately compromise the safety of the very population it aims to shield.'
This is the primary evaluative claim the epidemiologist is attempting to prove against the position held by the policymakers.
2
Locate the target statement and determine its relationship to the surrounding textual claims.
The target statement is introduced by 'Consequently', strongly indicating it is a conclusion. It is supported by the preceding sentence (regarding an exponentially higher number of viral replication events) and the subsequent sentence (regarding genetic errors occurring at a fixed frequency).
Understanding what structural evidence supports the target statement determines whether it functions as a raw premise or an inferred conclusion.
3
Determine how the target statement functions in the broader structural hierarchy of the argument.
The target statement (an accelerated mutation rate) is used as evidence to support the final sentence (the emergence of a treatment-resistant strain). This, in turn, explains exactly *why* the policy compromises safety (the main conclusion).
Because the statement is supported by premises AND subsequently supports the main conclusion, its precise structural role is an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Intermediate Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 483Soru →

An art historian is analyzing a disputed Renaissance-style painting to determine its true origin. To resolve the debate, the historian employs an argument by elimination, systematically testing four competing hypotheses against forensic and historical evidence. By ruling out each proposed origin using mutually exclusive physical or stylistic contradictions, the historian aims to isolate the single valid explanation. Match each of the four proposed hypotheses regarding the painting's origin with the specific piece of evidence the historian uses to successfully eliminate it.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The hypothesis that the artwork is a 20th-century forgery designed to deceive contemporary collectors.
The hypothesis that the artwork is a 17th-century reproduction commissioned by a wealthy patron.
The hypothesis that the artwork is an authentic, late-career masterpiece by the renowned Renaissance master.
The hypothesis that the artwork was entirely created by the master's leading apprentice.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The hypotheses are systematically eliminated as follows: The 20th-century forgery is eliminated by the lack of post-1850 drying agents. The 17th-century reproduction is eliminated by the use of a pigment lost between 1590 and 1941. The late-career master hypothesis is eliminated by the grid-based underdrawing contradicting his late freehand style. The apprentice hypothesis is eliminated by the use of a glazing technique the student explicitly condemned.
The correct matching perfectly aligns each proposed historical hypothesis with the specific premise that logically invalidates it through chronological, material, or stylistic contradiction, successfully demonstrating the process of elimination.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the chronological constraints of the 20th-century forgery hypothesis.
The painting lacks artificial drying agents that are universally present in all paints manufactured after 1850.
Argument by elimination requires identifying a physical or historical contradiction that makes the proposed hypothesis physically impossible.
2
Evaluate the 17th-century reproduction hypothesis against the chemical pigment evidence.
The 17th century falls squarely within the 1590–1941 historical gap during which the specific lead-tin yellow pigment was lost and unavailable.
If a necessary material did not exist during a specific century, the artifact could not have been created during that time.
3
Assess the late-career master hypothesis based on internal stylistic evidence.
The rigid, grid-based underdrawing directly contradicts the strictly freehand method the master exclusively used in his final decades.
A hypothesis specifying a particular career period must logically align with the exclusive, documented methods of that exact period.
4
Examine the apprentice hypothesis against biographical and technical evidence.
The painting relies on a glazing technique that the apprentice explicitly rejected and never used in practice.
Consistent, documented rejection of a technique by an artist logically rules them out as the creator of a work heavily relying on that exact technique.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Elimination
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 484Soru →

According to the newly established directives by the Orbital Commerce Commission, a commercial satellite launch qualifies for priority scheduling only if the launching corporation submits a comprehensive debris mitigation plan and at least one of the following occurs: the payload serves a registered humanitarian function, or an independent aerospace auditor certifies the vehicle's structural integrity.

Which of the following statements must be logically true based on the directives above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If a launching corporation fails to submit a comprehensive debris mitigation plan, or if both the payload does not serve a registered humanitarian function and an independent aerospace auditor fails to certify the vehicle's structural integrity, then the commercial satellite launch will not qualify for priority scheduling.

Cevap

If a launching corporation fails to submit a comprehensive debris mitigation plan, or if both the payload does not serve a registered humanitarian function and an independent aerospace auditor fails to certify the vehicle's structural integrity, then the commercial satellite launch will not qualify for priority scheduling.
The correct answer accurately applies the contrapositive to a compound conditional. The stimulus dictates that for a launch to qualify, it needs a mitigation plan AND at least one of two other factors (humanitarian function OR auditor certification). If it lacks the mitigation plan, it fails. Alternatively, if it lacks BOTH of the other factors, it fails. The correct choice perfectly captures this dynamic.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the stimulus into formal conditional logic.
Priority Scheduling (P) → Mitigation Plan (M) AND [Humanitarian Function (H) OR Auditor Certification (A)].
Accurately representing the necessary conditions is required before attempting to find the contrapositive.
2
Apply the process of forming a contrapositive by reversing and negating the terms.
NOT {Mitigation Plan (M) AND [Humanitarian Function (H) OR Auditor Certification (A)]} → NOT Priority Scheduling (P).
The logically valid inference from any conditional statement is its contrapositive.
3
Apply De Morgan's laws to properly negate the compound necessary condition.
The negation of 'M AND (H OR A)' becomes 'NOT M OR NOT (H OR A)'. Applying De Morgan's again to the inner bracket yields 'NOT M OR (NOT H AND NOT A)'.
Negating an 'AND' requires switching it to an 'OR', and negating an 'OR' requires switching it to an 'AND'.
4
Translate the final logical notation back into natural language.
If the corporation does not submit a plan (NOT M), OR if the payload lacks a humanitarian function AND the auditor fails to certify (NOT H AND NOT A), then the launch does not get priority scheduling (NOT P).
The correct answer choice will mirror this exact logical relationship without confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.

Anahtar Kavram

Forming contrapositives of compound conditional statements using De Morgan's laws.
Soru 485Soru →

Construct a logically sound, multi-step argument by placing the following claims in their correct sequential order, starting with foundational premises and building through intermediate deductions to the ultimate conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence begins with the premise about global warming causing opacity, followed by its direct effect on sunlight, the premise about organisms' reliance on sunlight, the resulting decrease in biomass, and finally the ultimate conclusion regarding fish population declines.
The argument forms a continuous logical chain. It starts with an environmental premise (warming causes opacity). This leads to a first intermediate conclusion (less sunlight). A new premise is then introduced (organisms need sunlight). Combining these leads to a second intermediate conclusion (organism biomass decreases). Finally, another premise is introduced within the last sentence (fish eat the organisms), which leads directly to the main conclusion (fish populations will decline).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the absolute starting points of the argument that do not depend on other statements.
The statement about global warming causing surface opacity is the independent trigger for the entire scenario.
A logically sound argument must begin with foundational evidence.
2
Locate the immediate logical consequence of the first premise.
The claim that 'significantly less sunlight will penetrate' is the direct result of the surface opacity established in the first step.
Intermediate conclusions are built by drawing immediate inferences from the preceding premises.
3
Identify any additional factual information required to continue the logical chain.
The statement explaining that twilight zone organisms rely entirely on sunlight introduces a new necessary fact.
Before concluding that the organisms will die off, the argument must first establish their biological dependence on the diminishing resource.
4
Determine the consequence of combining the lack of sunlight with the organisms' reliance on it.
The deduction that the biomass of these organisms will inevitably decrease follows directly from the previous two established points.
This acts as a second intermediate conclusion, bridging the gap between the environmental changes and the final impact.
5
Identify the final conclusion that the entire argument builds toward.
The prediction that deep-water fish populations will experience severe declines is the ultimate consequence.
The main conclusion must logically flow from the final intermediate conclusion (the decrease in food source) and encapsulate the author's primary warning.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 486Soru →

All amphibians that inhabit the alpine tundra rely on the nectar of the *Saxifraga* plant during their larval stage. Most species that rely on *Saxifraga* nectar during their larval stage are capable of surviving sub-zero temperatures. Furthermore, any species capable of surviving sub-zero temperatures possesses elevated levels of blood glucose.

Based on the information provided, which of the following must be true? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Most species that rely on the nectar of the *Saxifraga* plant during their larval stage possess elevated levels of blood glucose.; Any species that does not possess elevated levels of blood glucose is not capable of surviving sub-zero temperatures.

Cevap

The correct statements are that most species relying on the nectar possess elevated blood glucose, and that any species lacking elevated blood glucose cannot survive sub-zero temperatures.
The correct statements are derived from valid logical rules. One is proven by chaining a 'most' premise directly into an 'all' premise, establishing that most nectar-reliant species possess elevated blood glucose. The other is proven by correctly forming the contrapositive of the final premise, establishing that lacking elevated blood glucose guarantees a species cannot survive sub-zero temperatures.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the formal logic presented in the stimulus.
1. Alpine Tundra Amphibians -> Rely on Saxifraga Nectar. 2. Rely on Saxifraga Nectar -[most]-> Survive Sub-zero Temperatures. 3. Survive Sub-zero Temperatures -> Elevated Blood Glucose.
Mapping conditional and quantified statements clarifies the relationships and allowable deductions.
2
Evaluate combined logical inferences based on the diagram.
By linking statements 2 and 3, we can deduce that since most nectar-reliant species survive sub-zero temperatures, and ALL species that survive sub-zero temperatures possess elevated blood glucose, most nectar-reliant species must possess elevated blood glucose.
Chaining a 'most' statement with an 'all' statement yields a valid 'most' deduction.
3
Form contrapositives of the absolute conditional statements.
Contrapositive of 1: Do not rely on Saxifraga nectar -> Not an Alpine Tundra Amphibian. Contrapositive of 3: No elevated blood glucose -> Cannot survive sub-zero temperatures.
Contrapositives are always logically equivalent to the original conditional statements and are frequently tested in Must Be True questions.
4
Evaluate the given choices against the deduced truths to identify the correct answers.
The choice stating most nectar-reliant species possess elevated blood glucose matches our chained inference. The choice stating species without elevated blood glucose cannot survive sub-zero temperatures matches the contrapositive of statement 3.
Comparing choices to mathematically proven deductions ensures we select only the statements that are 100% supported by the text.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining formal logic and forming contrapositives to determine valid deductions.
Soru 487Soru →

According to the planetary geology archives:

- Every meteorite classified as a Type C chondrite contains elevated levels of iridium.
- Any meteorite containing elevated levels of iridium is designated as a Class-1 research priority by the Astromaterials Board.
- No meteorite recovered from the Antarctic glacial surface is designated as a Class-1 research priority unless it is a newly discovered fragment that has not been previously cataloged.
- Some meteorites classified as Type C chondrites were recovered from the Antarctic glacial surface, and most of these are exceptionally well-preserved.

Based on the information provided, which of the following statements must be true? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Every Type C chondrite recovered from the Antarctic glacial surface is a newly discovered fragment.; At least some exceptionally well-preserved meteorites contain elevated levels of iridium.

Cevap

The correct statements are that every Type C chondrite recovered from the Antarctic glacial surface is a newly discovered fragment, and that at least some exceptionally well-preserved meteorites contain elevated levels of iridium.
Based on the rules, any Type C chondrite is a Class-1 priority. Therefore, any Type C chondrite from Antarctica is both from Antarctica and a Class-1 priority, which means it must be a newly discovered fragment. Additionally, because some Type C chondrites from Antarctica exist, and most of them are well-preserved, there is at least one well-preserved Type C chondrite. Since it is Type C, it must contain elevated levels of iridium.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the universal conditional statements.
Type C -> Iridium -> Class-1 Priority. (Antarctic AND Class-1) -> Newly Discovered.
This establishes the strict logical chains required to evaluate absolute statements.
2
Analyze the quantified statements ('some' and 'most').
There exists a group of meteorites that are Type C and Antarctic. Most of this specific group are well-preserved.
Quantifiers provide the existential facts that interact with the universal rules.
3
Combine the existential facts with the universal chains.
The (Type C + Antarctic) meteorites must be Class-1 (since they are Type C). Because they are (Class-1 + Antarctic), they must be newly discovered. Thus, all (Type C + Antarctic) are newly discovered.
This guarantees the truth of the statement regarding Type C chondrites from Antarctica.
4
Derive inferences from the 'most' statement.
Since 'most' of the (Type C + Antarctic) group are well-preserved, at least one such meteorite exists. Because this meteorite is Type C, it contains iridium. Therefore, some well-preserved meteorites contain iridium.
This guarantees the truth of the statement regarding well-preserved meteorites.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining Conditional Statements and Quantifier Logic
Soru 488Soru →

Match each ethical principle of scientific data sharing to the factual scenario it most strictly governs based on its conditional logic.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A researcher is ethically obligated to share raw data with a competitor if the competitor's findings directly contradict the researcher's published work, unless the raw data contains personally identifiable information that cannot be safely redacted.
A researcher is ethically prohibited from sharing raw data with a competitor if the data was collected under a strict non-disclosure agreement, even if the competitor's findings contradict the researcher's published work, provided the agreement was signed before the competitor's research began.
A researcher is permitted, but not obligated, to share raw data with a competitor if the competitor is attempting to verify the researcher's published results through exact replication, provided the researcher has already secured a formal patent for the methodology.
A researcher is obligated to withhold raw data from a competitor if sharing it would jeopardize an ongoing, uncompleted secondary study by the researcher, regardless of whether the competitor's findings contradict the researcher's own, unless the competitor has obtained explicit overriding authorization from an independent ethics review board.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Principle 1 matches Dr. Aris's scenario. Principle 2 matches Dr. Bell's scenario. Principle 3 matches Dr. Chen's scenario. Principle 4 matches Dr. Diaz's scenario.
Each factual scenario correctly matches only one principle by strictly satisfying its conditional logic, including sufficient triggers (e.g., contradicting findings, jeopardizing a secondary study) and avoiding necessary exceptions (e.g., unredactable PII, ethics board approval). Overriding clauses ('regardless of', 'even if') resolve overlapping conditions.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Principle 1's conditional logic.
Obligation to share is triggered by contradicting findings, unless there is unredactable PII.
Establishing the precise sufficient and necessary conditions is required before evaluating the scenarios to avoid keyword traps.
2
Evaluate the scenarios against Principle 1.
Dr. Aris's scenario is the only true match. Findings contradict, and while PII exists, it can be securely anonymized (avoiding the 'unless' exception).
Dr. Diaz's scenario also features contradicting findings, but Principle 4 explicitly overrides this obligation.
3
Analyze Principle 2 and locate its matching scenario.
Principle 2 prohibits sharing if an NDA was signed before the competitor began. Dr. Bell's scenario matches this perfectly (NDA in January, competitor in March).
Principle 2 explicitly states it applies 'even if' findings contradict, completely overriding Principle 1's trigger.
4
Differentiate between Principle 3 and Principle 4 using the remaining scenarios.
Dr. Chen matches Principle 3 (replication attempt + patent allows permission). Dr. Diaz matches Principle 4 (jeopardizing a secondary study mandates withholding, lacking ethics approval).
Keyword traps like 'patent' in Dr. Diaz's scenario or 'ethics board' in Dr. Chen's scenario must be bypassed by relying strictly on the core sufficient triggers.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying complex conditional normative principles to specific factual scenarios by carefully tracking sufficient and necessary conditions, exceptions ('unless'), and overriding clauses.
Soru 489Soru →

During a public symposium on the integration of artificial intelligence in the judicial system, various panelists presented arguments regarding the proposed 'Auto-Magistrate' system. Which of the following arguments presented at the symposium contain an illegitimate appeal to authority, emotion, or majority? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Implementing the Auto-Magistrate for civil disputes is undeniably the most ethically sound policy, given that a comprehensive nationwide poll revealed that 85% of citizens strongly favor its immediate adoption.; The Auto-Magistrate framework is fundamentally flawed and must be abandoned, a conclusion definitively proven by the recent public denunciation from Dr. Elias Vance, a Nobel laureate in theoretical chemistry.

Cevap

The arguments that commit an appeal fallacy are the one concluding a policy is ethically sound based on a popular poll (Appeal to Majority) and the one concluding the framework is flawed based on the opinion of a theoretical chemist (Appeal to Unqualified Authority).
The correct answers demonstrate classic appeal fallacies. One argument concludes that a policy is 'ethically sound' solely because 85% of citizens favor it, which is an illegitimate appeal to majority (ad populum). The truth of an ethical claim is not determined by popular consensus. Another argument relies on the denunciation of a 'Nobel laureate in theoretical chemistry' to prove a judicial AI is flawed. This is an illegitimate appeal to authority, as the expert's qualifications are entirely outside the relevant field of law and AI ethics.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the question stem to determine the precise task.
The task requires identifying which of the presented arguments specifically commit an illegitimate appeal to authority, emotion, or majority.
In Logical Reasoning, distinguishing the exact category of a logical flaw is critical when multiple arguments contain different types of errors.
2
Evaluate each argument to determine its primary method of reasoning and potential logical vulnerability.
Two arguments rely on outside sources to prove their conclusion: one uses a public poll to prove ethical soundness, and another uses a chemist to prove a legal/technological framework is flawed. The remaining three rely on structural errors (conditional reversal, causal assumption, part-to-whole assumption).
Identifying the core premise-to-conclusion relationship isolates the nature of the flaw.
3
Select the arguments that match the requested flaw categories.
The argument using the poll commits an appeal to majority. The argument using the chemist commits an appeal to unqualified authority. The others commit formal, causal, and compositional flaws respectively, and are thus eliminated.
Only arguments explicitly relying on emotion, unqualified experts, or popular consensus satisfy the stem's criteria.

Anahtar Kavram

Appeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)
Soru 490Soru →

Biologist: The presence of xylotoxin in the venom of the deep-sea viperfish has traditionally been explained as an evolutionary adaptation for immobilizing highly evasive prey. However, we now know that the viperfish's primary food source, the sluggish abyssal slug, possesses complete immunity to xylotoxin. Given that the viperfish only rarely encounters highly evasive species in its deep-sea habitat, the xylotoxin must actually serve a strictly non-predatory physiological function.

Evaluate the following statement regarding the argument above:

The biologist's argument logically depends on the assumption that an evolutionary trait cannot be maintained in a species exclusively for a predatory function that is utilized only on rare occasions.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is True because it articulates a bridge assumption required for the conclusion to hold. The author concludes that xylotoxin MUST have a non-predatory function solely because its predatory target is encountered 'only rarely'. For this definitive conclusion to be valid, it must be inherently true that rare usage is insufficient to exclusively maintain such an evolutionary trait. If rare usage were sufficient, the conclusion would immediately fail.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the premises supporting it.
Conclusion: Xylotoxin must serve a strictly non-predatory physiological function. Premises: Its primary prey is immune, and the evasive prey it was thought to target is only rarely encountered.
Deconstructing the argument is the essential first step in identifying logical gaps.
2
Analyze the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The biologist jumps directly from 'the predatory function is used rarely' to the absolute claim that 'the toxin MUST serve a non-predatory function.'
Identifying the shift in scope or logic reveals what the author inherently takes for granted.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the provided statement.
Negated statement: 'An evolutionary trait CAN be maintained in a species exclusively for a predatory function that is utilized only on rare occasions.'
The Negation Test is the definitive method for proving if an assumption is strictly necessary.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the argument's conclusion.
If the negated statement is true, the toxin could exist solely for those rare encounters, destroying the conclusion that it must serve a non-predatory function. Therefore, the original statement is strictly necessary.
If negating an assumption destroys the argument, the assumption is logically required.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Test
Soru 491Soru →

Literary Critic: The newly unearthed manuscript attributed to the 16th-century playwright Thomas Kyd is undoubtedly a modern forgery. We can be certain of this because Marcus Vance, the world’s most celebrated abstract painter, has read the text and publicly stated that its emotional depth feels entirely modern.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the literary critic's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: bases its conclusion on the judgment of an individual whose recognized expertise is not relevant to the subject matter at hand.

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it relies on the testimony of an abstract painter to evaluate the historical authenticity of a literary manuscript, which constitutes an appeal to an unqualified authority.
The correct answer accurately describes an appeal to an inappropriate authority. The literary critic concludes that the manuscript is a forgery solely based on the opinion of Marcus Vance. However, Vance is described as an abstract painter. His expertise in painting does not give him the relevant credentials to authenticate 16th-century literary manuscripts. Therefore, relying on his judgment for this specific issue is logically flawed.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the manuscript attributed to Thomas Kyd is a modern forgery.
Understanding the conclusion is necessary to evaluate how the provided evidence is used to support it.
2
Identify the premise used to support the conclusion.
The sole premise is that Marcus Vance, a famous abstract painter, claims the text's emotional depth feels modern.
We must isolate the core evidence to identify any logical disconnects between it and the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the premise and the conclusion to find the logical flaw.
The argument trusts a visual artist's opinion on literary history. A painter's expertise does not qualify them to authenticate historical manuscripts.
Identifying this gap reveals the classic flaw: an appeal to inappropriate authority.

Anahtar Kavram

Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 492Soru →

Match each of the following argument excerpts to the precise abstract description of the logical fallacy it commits.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The new municipal zoning regulations are clearly unconstitutional. Dr. Vance, a Nobel laureate in theoretical physics, has published a detailed essay outlining why they violate fundamental legal rights.
The city council must approve the proposed bailout for the local transit authority. If they do not, thousands of hardworking parents will instantly lose their jobs and their children will suffer immensely.
The new artificial sweetener must be completely safe for human consumption. A recent nationwide poll reveals that over eighty percent of consumers believe it poses no health risks whatsoever.
The proposed chemical plant will not contaminate the local river. We can be certain of this because the lead developer of the plant assured the zoning board that their safety protocols are completely foolproof.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The excerpt about Dr. Vance matches with appealing to an irrelevant authority; the transit bailout excerpt matches with eliciting sympathy; the sweetener excerpt matches with treating widespread acceptance as sufficient evidence; and the chemical plant excerpt matches with accepting testimony from a party with a vested interest.
Each excerpt contains a classic logical fallacy involving an illegitimate appeal. The first excerpt appeals to an expert in the wrong field. The second excerpt uses emotional manipulation rather than relevant evidence. The third excerpt relies on popular opinion to determine a factual matter. The fourth excerpt blindly trusts a heavily biased source.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first excerpt regarding the zoning regulations.
The argument cites a Nobel laureate in physics to prove a point about constitutional law.
Identifying the mismatch between the cited expert's field and the topic of the conclusion reveals an appeal to an unqualified authority.
2
Analyze the second excerpt regarding the transit bailout.
The argument focuses entirely on the suffering of parents and children if the bailout is rejected.
Recognizing that the premise tries to evoke pity rather than addressing the financial or practical merits of the bailout identifies the appeal to emotion.
3
Analyze the third excerpt regarding the artificial sweetener.
The argument uses the belief of eighty percent of consumers to prove a scientific claim about safety.
Noting that widespread public belief does not equate to scientific fact identifies the appeal to majority (ad populum).
4
Analyze the fourth excerpt regarding the chemical plant.
The argument relies on the assurances of the plant's lead developer to prove the plant is environmentally safe.
Understanding that the developer has a strong bias and stands to benefit from the plant's approval identifies the reliance on a non-neutral or biased authority.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying various forms of appeal fallacies (authority, emotion, majority, and bias) by their abstract logical descriptions.
Soru 493Soru →

Match each of the logically flawed arguments below to the abstract description that most accurately identifies its specific error in reasoning regarding the relationship between parts and wholes.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Each individual brick used to construct the new garden retaining wall can easily be lifted by a single person. Therefore, the completed retaining wall can easily be lifted by a single person.
The country's biotechnology sector is currently experiencing rapid, unprecedented economic expansion. It necessarily follows that BioGenetics Inc., a modest local startup within that sector, is experiencing unprecedented economic expansion.
None of the individual pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution is, on its own, sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt. Thus, the prosecution's entire body of evidence fails to prove the defendant's guilt.
The university's philosophy department is widely recognized by academic journals as having the most ideologically diverse faculty in the nation. Consequently, Professor Higgins, a member of that department, must personally hold ideologically diverse views.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The arguments logically pair with their descriptions by correctly distinguishing whether the reasoning illegitimately moves from part-to-whole (composition) or whole-to-part (division), and by accurately identifying the specific domain (e.g., physical structures, abstract categories, aggregates of evidence, or collective bodies) in which the flaw occurs.
Each match correctly aligns the specific direction of the logical leap (from parts to a whole, or from a whole to its parts) and the specific nature of the subjects involved (physical objects, categories, evidentiary aggregates, or groups of people) with the corresponding generalized LSAT flaw description.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first argument regarding the retaining wall.
Identified as a composition flaw moving from the physical parts (bricks) to a physical whole (retaining wall). Maps to the description concerning physical structures.
To isolate the direction of the flaw and the nature of the entity being evaluated.
2
Analyze the second argument regarding the biotechnology sector.
Identified as a division flaw moving from a macro-level category (sector) to a specific entity within it (startup). Maps to the description concerning broader categories.
To distinguish abstract categorical reasoning from physical or collective reasoning.
3
Analyze the third argument regarding the body of evidence.
Identified as a composition flaw moving from individual pieces of an aggregate (evidence) to the capability of the collective whole. Maps to the description concerning aggregates meeting a standard.
To connect the specific context of cumulative sufficiency to the correct abstract structural flaw.
4
Analyze the fourth argument regarding the philosophy department.
Identified as a division flaw moving from a collective trait of a group (diversity) to an individual member (Professor Higgins). Maps to the description concerning collective bodies and individual members.
To accurately categorize the misapplication of a group property to an individual.

Anahtar Kavram

Composition and Division (Part to Whole)
Soru 494Soru →

Match each logical argument to the specific statement that, if assumed, enables the argument's conclusion to be properly drawn.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Any philosophical framework that fundamentally relies on purely theoretical entities violates the established principle of parsimony, rendering it methodologically suspect. Consequently, string theory inherently violates this foundational principle of parsimony. This is because its core mathematical models necessarily posit the existence of multiple extra spatial dimensions beyond the observable universe.
The newly proposed municipal planning reform will undoubtedly alleviate the city's severe and persistent housing shortage. The legislation completely abolishes a series of outdated and restrictive zoning ordinances. Empirical economic evidence demonstrates conclusively that removing such archaic restrictions invariably stimulates the local construction sector to build high-density developments.
A central bank's monetary policy can successfully curb runaway inflation only if it significantly diminishes aggregate consumer spending within the economy. Therefore, the central bank's recent aggressive series of interest rate hikes will successfully curb inflation, as preliminary market data indicates these rate hikes have already begun to diminish consumer spending.
The corporate board's unilateral decision to rapidly liquidate the struggling subsidiary's assets was clearly and objectively unethical. In executing this liquidation, the board explicitly prioritized the immediate distribution of shareholder dividends over the long-term financial security and well-being of the subsidiary's dedicated workforce.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 pairs with the definition of theoretical entities; Argument 2 pairs with the construction sector guarantee; Argument 3 pairs with the economic intervention sufficiency; Argument 4 pairs with the moral principle on corporate ethics.
Each correct pairing provides the exact missing premise required to make its corresponding argument formally valid. This involves bridging concept gaps, connecting intermediate steps to final outcomes, fixing conditional logic flaws, and supplying underlying moral principles.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the philosophical argument regarding string theory.
The argument has a concept gap. The premise introduces 'extra spatial dimensions', but the conclusion relies on the rule for 'purely theoretical entities'.
To guarantee the conclusion, an assumption must bridge this vocabulary gap by explicitly classifying these dimensions as theoretical entities.
2
Analyze the public policy argument regarding housing reform.
The argument proves the reform 'stimulates the construction sector', but the conclusion leaps to the claim that it will 'alleviate the housing shortage'.
A sufficient assumption must state that the proven intermediate result (stimulating construction) is enough to guarantee the final outcome (alleviating the shortage).
3
Analyze the economic argument regarding monetary policy.
The argument contains a conditional logic flaw. It states that diminishing spending is necessary ('only if') to curb inflation, but then treats it as if it is sufficient to guarantee the curbing of inflation.
The required assumption must fix this flaw by explicitly stating that reducing purchasing activity (diminishing spending) is sufficient to arrest rising prices (curb inflation).
4
Analyze the ethical argument regarding corporate liquidation.
The premise establishes a factual action (prioritizing dividends over security), while the conclusion makes a normative moral judgment ('unethical').
We need a bridge principle that explicitly connects the factual action to the normative judgment, defining that specific prioritization as ethically impermissible.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the missing logical link or repairing the logical flaw to create a valid deductive argument where the conclusion is entirely guaranteed by the premises.
Soru 495Soru →

Archaeologist: The abandonment of the thriving ancient settlement of Kelior is generally attributed to a century-long regional drought. However, isotopic analysis of soil strata indicates that less than a decade before the abandonment, Kelior's farmers abruptly transitioned from cultivating teff, a highly drought-resistant grain, to a variety of water-intensive marsh-rice. Therefore, it was actually this ill-advised agricultural pivot, rather than the drought alone, that precipitated the settlement's collapse by engineering a catastrophic famine.

The archaeologist's argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The regional drought was not so extreme that it would have caused a catastrophic famine at Kelior even if the farmers had continued cultivating teff exclusively.

Cevap

The assumption that the drought was not severe enough to destroy the drought-resistant teff crops.
In this argument, the author attempts to shift the blame for a historical famine from an external factor (a drought) to an internal factor (an agricultural pivot). To successfully argue that the pivot, 'rather than the drought alone', was the cause, the author must inherently assume that the drought was not independently capable of causing the exact same catastrophic outcome. If the drought would have decimated the highly resistant teff anyway, the farmers' ill-advised pivot to rice was irrelevant to their ultimate fate. Therefore, the argument depends on the assumption that the drought was not extreme enough to destroy the original crops.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the agricultural pivot to marsh-rice, rather than the drought alone, precipitated the settlement's collapse by causing a famine.
Understanding the exact causal claim is necessary to evaluate what the author must assume to make this claim.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
1. Kelior faced a century-long drought. 2. Shortly before abandonment, farmers switched from drought-resistant teff to water-intensive marsh-rice.
Premises provide the foundation; the assumption must bridge the gap between these facts and the causal conclusion.
3
Anticipate alternate explanations (weaknesses) in the causal claim.
What if the drought was incredibly severe—so apocalyptic that no crop, not even the highly resistant teff, could have survived? If that were true, the crop pivot didn't matter; the drought alone caused the famine.
A 'Defender' assumption works by explicitly ruling out a potential weakness or alternate explanation that would destroy the argument.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to the correct option.
Negated correct answer: The drought WAS so extreme it would have caused a famine even if they cultivated teff. This directly contradicts the conclusion that the pivot, rather than the drought alone, caused the famine.
The Negation Test is the definitive proof for a Necessary Assumption question. If negating the choice destroys the argument, it is the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Defender Assumptions in Causal Arguments
Soru 496Soru →

Consider the following argument:

'Dr. Varma, a prominent economist, argues that abolishing the capital gains tax will increase overall wealth equality. However, Dr. Varma is extremely wealthy and would personally save millions of dollars if the tax were abolished. Given this glaring financial bias, we must conclude that her economic projections regarding wealth equality are false.'

Statement: The argument above is logically sound because a proponent's massive personal financial conflict of interest provides sufficient logical grounds to deduce that their empirical claims are false.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false because the argument provided is not logically sound; it commits a circumstantial ad hominem flaw. While a severe conflict of interest is a valid reason to question a source's credibility, it does not logically prove that the source's empirical claims are definitively false. An argument must address the substance of the claims, not just the motives of the speaker, to establish falsity.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus argument to identify the premises and the final conclusion.
The premise focuses entirely on Dr. Varma's personal wealth and financial incentives. The conclusion asserts that her economic projections must be definitively false.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to evaluate its logical validity.
2
Evaluate the logical relationship between the premise (financial bias) and the conclusion (falsity of the claim).
A person's financial motive to deceive provides a reason to doubt their credibility, but it does not logically guarantee that their factual claims are incorrect.
Identifying the gap between attacking the source and refuting the substance of the argument reveals the flaw.
3
Classify the reasoning used in the argument based on logical flaw categories.
The argument commits a circumstantial ad hominem (source argument) flaw by rejecting a claim based solely on the vested interests of the arguer.
Applying formal logical definitions confirms that the argument is flawed, not sound.
4
Evaluate the provided Statement against the findings from the previous steps.
The Statement asserts that the argument is 'logically sound'. Since the argument actually contains a definitive ad hominem flaw, the Statement is false.
This directly answers the true/false evaluation prompt.

Anahtar Kavram

Ad Hominem (Source Argument) - Circumstantial Bias
Soru 497Soru →

Match each of the following flawed arguments (Left) with the abstract logical description of its specific sampling or survey error (Right).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

To gauge citywide support for a new nighttime noise ordinance, the city council surveyed residents who attended a 2:00 PM Wednesday town hall meeting. Finding that 85% supported the measure, the council concluded that a vast majority of the city's population favors the ordinance.
A productivity app developer sought to prove their tool increases daily output. They sent an in-app questionnaire asking, 'How much has our app helped you achieve your goals this week?' and concluded from the overwhelmingly positive responses that the app objectively boosts productivity.
An historian analyzed the structural integrity of 18th-century wooden ships by examining the five vessels from that era currently preserved in maritime museums. Because all five exhibit exceptional craftsmanship, the historian concluded that 18th-century shipbuilders universally maintained extremely high structural standards.
A restaurant chain implemented a new QR-code feedback system on their receipts. After a month, 90% of the submitted reviews were heavily critical of the service speed. Management concluded that nearly all of their customers are dissatisfied with the speed of service.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The town hall survey matches the temporal exclusion flaw; the app survey matches the presuppositional phrasing flaw; the historian matches the survival subset flaw; and the restaurant matches the self-selection flaw.
Each argument commits a distinct sampling or survey flaw. The town hall argument surveys people at a highly restrictive time, excluding a massive demographic. The app developer uses a leading question that forces a positive premise. The historian looks only at surviving artifacts, which inherently misrepresents the average quality of all artifacts originally produced. Finally, the restaurant relies on a voluntary feedback mechanism, which disproportionately attracts dissatisfied customers.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the town hall scenario to identify its specific flaw.
The sample was taken at 2:00 PM on a Wednesday, excluding those who work standard hours.
This matches the abstract description of generalizing based on a sample that systematically excludes individuals unavailable at a specific time.
2
Analyze the app developer scenario.
The survey asks 'How much has our app helped,' forcing a positive framework.
This matches the abstract description of relying on survey responses elicited by phrasing that presupposes the truth of the conclusion.
3
Analyze the historian scenario.
The historian evaluates only ships that survived hundreds of years in museums.
This matches the description of basing a judgment on a subset that possesses a characteristic merely by virtue of enduring to the present (survivorship bias).
4
Analyze the restaurant scenario.
The data comes from a voluntary QR-code system where customers must choose to leave feedback.
This matches the description of taking for granted that individuals who self-select to participate are representative of the broader population.

Anahtar Kavram

Sampling and Survey Flaws
Soru 498Soru →

Every painting acquired by the city museum before 1900 is considered part of the permanent collection. Therefore, every painting acquired by the museum before 1900 must be displayed on the first floor of the building.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Every painting that is part of the permanent collection must be displayed on the first floor of the building.

Cevap

The correct assumption is that every painting that is part of the permanent collection must be displayed on the first floor of the building.
The argument provides the premise (A -> B) and draws the conclusion (A -> C). To make this logically valid, we must bridge the gap between B and C with the rule (B -> C). The correct answer explicitly provides this missing rule: if a painting is in the permanent collection, it must be displayed on the first floor.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premise.
If a painting was acquired before 1900, it is part of the permanent collection (Acquired Before 1900 -> Permanent Collection).
This establishes the starting condition of the logic chain.
2
Identify the argument's conclusion.
If a painting was acquired before 1900, it must be displayed on the first floor (Acquired Before 1900 -> First Floor).
This is the final destination the author is trying to prove.
3
Find the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument leaps from 'Permanent Collection' in the premise to 'First Floor' in the conclusion without connecting them.
For the conclusion to be 100% guaranteed, there must be no unconnected terms.
4
Formulate the necessary bridge to guarantee the conclusion.
We must state that anything in the permanent collection must go to the first floor (Permanent Collection -> First Floor).
Chaining 'Acquired Before 1900 -> Permanent Collection' with 'Permanent Collection -> First Floor' deductively yields 'Acquired Before 1900 -> First Floor'.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption conditional chaining
Soru 499Soru →

Review the following four scenarios, each containing a distinct methodological error related to data collection. Pair each scenario with the corresponding logical flaw description.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A researcher evaluating a long-term diet program surveyed individuals who have strictly adhered to the diet for five years. Because nearly all of them reported improved cardiovascular health, the researcher concluded that the diet is guaranteed to improve the health of anyone who attempts it.
A technology blogger posted a poll on her website asking whether people prefer traditional laptops or tablets. With most respondents favoring tablets, she concluded that the general public now strongly prefers tablets over traditional laptops.
During the first hour of a citywide festival, a food vendor noticed that the first four customers to visit her stall requested vegan options. She quickly deduced that the vast majority of festival attendees this year must follow a vegan diet.
A university administration surveyed students, asking, 'Do you agree that the university should implement the proposed tuition increase to maintain our prestigious academic facilities?' Because a majority agreed, the administration claimed students fully support the tuition hike.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match the diet program to survivorship bias (failing to account for dropouts), the tech blog to voluntary response bias (self-selected participants), the food vendor to small sample size (insufficient number of cases), and the university survey to leading questions (phrased to elicit a specific response).
Each scenario demonstrates a distinct violation of valid sampling principles. The diet study ignores attrition (survivorship bias). The tech poll relies on a non-random, self-selected internet audience (voluntary response bias). The vendor makes a broad claim based on four data points (small sample size). The university uses loaded language to skew results (leading question).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Evaluate the diet program scenario.
Identifies that measuring only those who 'strictly adhered' for five years creates a biased sample of survivors.
Failing to account for participants who dropped out invalidates the claim that the diet works for 'anyone'.
2
Evaluate the technology blogger scenario.
Identifies that a website poll relies on individuals who voluntarily choose to participate.
Self-selected respondents to a niche blog cannot reliably represent the general population.
3
Evaluate the food vendor scenario.
Identifies that a conclusion about the 'vast majority' is based on just four people.
An insufficiently small number of cases cannot support a sweeping generalization about a large group.
4
Evaluate the university administration scenario.
Identifies that the survey question justifies the fee hike by linking it to 'prestigious academic facilities'.
Phrasing an inquiry to elicit a specific positive response invalidates the survey results as objective evidence.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying and differentiating common methodological flaws in sampling and surveys, including survivorship bias, voluntary response bias, unrepresentative sample sizes, and leading questions.
Soru 500Soru →

Match each flawed argument with the abstract description that best identifies the specific type of source-based reasoning error (ad hominem) it commits.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Consumer Advocate: TechFirm's CEO argues that users must adopt stringent password policies to ensure their data privacy. However, TechFirm was recently exposed for using easily guessable passwords for its internal corporate databases. Therefore, the CEO's argument about data privacy should be rejected.
City Councilor: A real estate developer claims that relaxing downtown zoning laws will reduce traffic congestion and revitalize local businesses. Yet, the developer owns several vacant lots downtown and stands to make millions if the laws are changed. Thus, the developer's conclusions are completely invalid.
Art Critic: The gallery director insists that the new minimalist sculpture represents a profound evolution in modern art. But the director is notoriously abrasive, frequently insults colleagues, and has a deeply unpleasant demeanor. Hence, the director's evaluation of the sculpture must be dismissed.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Consumer Advocate passage matches the description of contradicting actions; the City Councilor passage matches the description of vested interest; and the Art Critic passage matches the description of a personal character attack.
Each passage exemplifies a distinct sub-category of the Ad Hominem flaw. The Consumer Advocate uses a 'tu quoque' attack by highlighting inconsistent actions, the City Councilor uses a circumstantial attack by focusing on vested interest, and the Art Critic uses an abusive attack by insulting personal character. The correct pairings directly map these passages to their precise abstract descriptions.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Consumer Advocate passage to identify the specific mechanism of the reasoning flaw.
The argument attacks the TechFirm CEO's position on password security by pointing out that TechFirm's own behavior (using easily guessable passwords) contradicts the advice.
Identifying the contradiction between the arguer's advice and actions reveals a 'tu quoque' (hypocrisy) source attack.
2
Analyze the City Councilor passage to identify the specific mechanism of the reasoning flaw.
The argument dismisses the developer's comprehensive zoning study entirely because the developer stands to profit financially from the proposed zoning changes.
Focusing on the proponent's motives and potential for personal gain defines a circumstantial ad hominem (vested interest).
3
Analyze the Art Critic passage to identify the specific mechanism of the reasoning flaw.
The argument rejects the gallery director's evaluation of a sculpture by insulting the director's abrasive personality and unpleasant demeanor.
Targeting the arguer's character traits, which are completely irrelevant to their artistic assessment, constitutes an abusive ad hominem.

Anahtar Kavram

Ad Hominem (Source Argument)
ÖncekiSayfa 25 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin