Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 501Soru →

Below are four distinct causal arguments and four potential pieces of evidence. Pair each argument with the single piece of evidence that most effectively bolsters its specific conclusion by addressing an underlying logical vulnerability.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Researchers observed that employees utilizing standing desks report fewer instances of lower back pain than those using traditional seated desks. They conclude that standing desks directly alleviate back pain.
Following the introduction of an invasive hawk species to Elmwood Forest, the population of native ground squirrels declined sharply. Biologists conclude that the hawks are aggressively hunting the ground squirrels.
A recent educational study shows that students who learn to play a musical instrument score significantly higher on standardized math tests. The authors conclude that musical training actively enhances mathematical reasoning skills.
After the city of Morovia initiated a comprehensive tree-planting campaign in its downtown district, average summer daytime temperatures there dropped by two degrees. Planners assert the new trees directly caused this cooling effect.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Match the Standing Desks argument with the evidence ruling out outside exercise; the Hawk argument with the evidence ruling out starvation/disease; the Musical Training argument with the evidence showing no initial math advantage; and the Tree Planting argument with the evidence regarding neighboring municipalities.
Each correct pairing successfully matches a causal argument with the specific piece of evidence that patches its unique logical vulnerability. By ruling out alternative causes (exercise, starvation/disease), eliminating selection bias (pre-existing math skills), and providing a negative control group (neighboring cities), each piece of evidence significantly increases the probability that the stated conclusion is true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Standing Desks argument to identify its logical gap.
The argument assumes a correlation between desk type and pain reduction implies causation, ignoring the possibility that standing desk users might simply have healthier habits overall.
Identifying the unstated assumption is necessary to find the evidence that protects the argument from that specific vulnerability.
2
Select the evidence that addresses the gap in the Standing Desks argument.
The evidence stating that standing desk users do not engage in more back-strengthening exercises effectively rules out a major alternative cause, thereby strengthening the original claim.
Ruling out alternative causes is a primary method of strengthening a causal argument.
3
Analyze the Hawk and Squirrel argument and match it with corresponding evidence.
The argument assumes the new predator caused the prey decline. The evidence showing abundant food and no disease rules out the other two most common causes of animal population collapse.
Eliminating alternative explanations strengthens the likelihood that the stated cause is the correct one.
4
Analyze the Musical Training argument and match it with corresponding evidence.
The argument is vulnerable to selection bias. The evidence showing no initial math advantage proves the groups started equal, meaning the music training is the most likely cause of the later divergence in scores.
Establishing a neutral baseline rules out the possibility that the 'effect' actually preceded the 'cause'.
5
Analyze the Tree Planting argument and match it with corresponding evidence.
The argument assumes the local intervention caused the cooling. The evidence showing neighboring cities warmed up provides a control group that isolates the tree planting as the active variable.
Demonstrating that an effect did not occur where the cause was absent strongly supports a causal relationship.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening causal arguments requires addressing specific vulnerabilities: ruling out alternative explanations, eliminating selection bias, and utilizing control groups to demonstrate cause-without-effect controls.
Soru 502Soru →

Literary Critic: A novel can be considered a genuine masterpiece only if it profoundly disrupts the reader’s pre-existing worldview. Yet, the vast majority of critically acclaimed novels published during the past decade rely strictly on familiar narrative tropes that serve only to validate readers' existing ideological biases. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that future literary historians will recognize any of these recently acclaimed novels as genuine masterpieces.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Future literary historians will not recognize a novel as a genuine masterpiece if it serves only to validate readers' existing ideological biases.

Cevap

The argument assumes that future literary historians will not recognize a novel as a genuine masterpiece if it serves only to validate readers' existing ideological biases.
The critic’s logic requires a bridge between a novel lacking the true qualities of a masterpiece and future historians properly withholding that title. The premises establish that recent novels fail the test for being true masterpieces because they validate rather than disrupt biases. However, the conclusion jumps to what historians will *recognize*. For this to hold true, it must be assumed that historians won't mistakenly grant masterpiece status to these exact types of flawed novels. Applying the Negation Test confirms this: if future historians *would* recognize novels that only validate biases as masterpieces, then the conclusion that they won't recognize these recent novels falls apart entirely.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that future literary historians will likely not recognize recent acclaimed novels as genuine masterpieces.
This is the final claim that the author is trying to prove using the provided evidence.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premise 1: A masterpiece must disrupt the reader's worldview. Premise 2: Recent acclaimed novels only validate existing biases (meaning they do not disrupt worldviews).
Understanding the evidence is necessary to spot the logical leap the author makes to reach the conclusion.
3
Spot the gap or shift in language between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises establish that recent novels are *not actually* masterpieces. The conclusion claims that future historians will not *recognize* them as masterpieces.
Many LSAT flaws rely on the subtle distinction between objective reality (what a thing is) and subjective evaluation (how a thing is judged or recognized).
4
Apply the Negation Test to candidate assumptions to verify which one is strictly necessary.
Negating the correct option yields: 'Future historians WILL recognize a novel as a masterpiece even if it only validates biases.' If this were true, the fact that recent novels only validate biases would not prevent historians from recognizing them as masterpieces, and the argument would collapse.
The Negation Test is the definitive method for confirming a Necessary Assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating the gap between objective fact and subjective recognition in Necessary Assumption questions.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 503Soru →

Identify the specific reasoning error in each of the following arguments by linking the short stimulus to its corresponding logical flaw description.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Dr. Smith claims that our new diet plan is unhealthy. But Dr. Smith was recently fired from his job for being chronically late, so his criticism should be ignored.
The new sci-fi movie is definitely the most popular film of the year because everyone is going to see it.
I always wear my lucky socks when I play tennis, and I won my match today. Therefore, my lucky socks caused me to win.
We should adopt the new tax policy. After all, a famous actor who has starred in many successful action movies says it is the best economic plan for the country.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The argument attacking Dr. Smith matches with rejecting a claim based on personal characteristics. The movie popularity argument matches with assuming the truth of the conclusion. The lucky socks argument matches with concluding causation from correlation. The tax policy argument matches with relying on irrelevant expertise.
Each argument represents a distinct, classic logical fallacy. The Dr. Smith argument is an ad hominem attack. The movie argument is circular reasoning. The lucky socks argument is a correlation-to-causation error. The actor argument is an appeal to inappropriate authority.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first argument regarding Dr. Smith.
Identify that the argument attacks Dr. Smith's professional record rather than his medical or dietary claims.
This helps match it to the description of a personal attack rather than addressing the substance of the argument.
2
Analyze the second argument regarding the sci-fi movie.
Identify that being the most popular and everyone going to see it mean the exact same thing.
This confirms the argument is circular, matching the description of assuming the conclusion in the premise.
3
Analyze the third argument regarding the lucky socks.
Identify that a causal relationship is drawn from a mere coincidence.
This corresponds to the flaw of assuming causation based on events occurring together.
4
Analyze the fourth argument regarding the tax policy.
Identify that an actor is being cited as an authority on an unrelated topic.
This matches the flaw of relying on an expert whose expertise is outside the relevant domain.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Common Logical Flaws
Soru 504Soru →

Energy Policy Analyst: Historically, over the last four decades, sudden and severe spikes in the price of imported petroleum have caused prolonged economic downturns in our country by drastically increasing manufacturing and transportation costs. Next quarter, global commodities markets are projected to experience an unprecedented 40 percent surge in petroleum prices due to regional export restrictions. Therefore, policymakers must urgently prepare for an imminent and severe national economic downturn.

Which of the following accurately describe a reasoning flaw in the analyst's argument? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It takes for granted that the structural economic vulnerabilities present during previous decades persist unaltered into the present day.; It projects a historically established causal mechanism into the future without considering whether relevant intervening circumstances have shifted.

Cevap

The correct options are the one stating it assumes structural economic vulnerabilities persist unaltered, and the one stating it projects a historical causal mechanism into the future without considering shifted circumstances.
The correct choices accurately target the argument's vulnerability: it relies on historical evidence (the last four decades) to guarantee a future event. To do this, it must assume that the relevant background conditions (e.g., the economy's reliance on oil, alternative energy availability, manufacturing processes) have not changed. Both correct descriptions highlight this unwarranted temporal leap from past causal mechanisms to future outcomes.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises of the argument.
Premise 1: Past petroleum price spikes caused economic downturns. Premise 2: A 40% price spike is projected for next quarter.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step to evaluating its logical validity.
2
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: Policymakers must prepare for an imminent economic downturn.
The conclusion represents the claim that the author believes is supported by the premises.
3
Analyze the gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument relies on the assumption that what happened in the past (petroleum spikes causing downturns) will necessarily happen in the future.
Identifying the unstated assumptions reveals the logical flaws in the reasoning.
4
Categorize the flaw based on the identified gap.
The gap is a 'Time Shift Flaw'. The author assumes that static conditions have persisted over the last four decades and that historical trends will perfectly extrapolate into the future.
Matching the gap to known LSAT flaw archetypes helps in selecting the accurately phrased answer choices.
5
Evaluate the options against the identified flaw.
Two options correctly describe this temporal assumption using different abstract language. The others describe flaws (equivocation, quantifier overreach, structural confusion) not present in the stimulus.
Because this is a multiple-selection question, all valid descriptions of the core flaw must be identified.

Anahtar Kavram

Time Shift Flaws (Past vs. Future) occur when an argument assumes that historical conditions, relationships, or trends will necessarily continue unchanged into the present or future.
Soru 505Soru →

Transportation Official: Three years ago, our city implemented an automated traffic enforcement system. Since then, the total number of citations issued for all traffic violations has dropped by 40 percent. However, over the same period, the percentage of all traffic accidents on our highways in which excessive speed was cited as the primary cause has surged from 15 percent to 35 percent. This clearly demonstrates that, despite the drop in citations, there is currently a higher total number of high-speed accidents occurring on our highways than there was three years ago.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: draws a conclusion about the absolute frequency of a particular type of event based entirely on evidence concerning that event's proportional share of a broader category

Cevap

The correct answer states that the argument draws a conclusion about the absolute frequency of a particular type of event based entirely on evidence concerning that event's proportional share of a broader category.
The correct answer accurately describes the structural flaw: the official uses a rising percentage (15% to 35%) to definitively conclude that an absolute number (the total count of high-speed accidents) has increased. This requires the unstated and unjustified assumption that the overall total of highway accidents remained the same or increased.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The official concludes that there is currently a higher total number of high-speed accidents occurring on the highways than there was three years ago.
This is the claim the official is attempting to prove using the provided statistics.
2
Identify the premise used to support the conclusion about high-speed accidents.
The premise is that the percentage of highway accidents in which excessive speed was cited surged from 15 percent to 35 percent.
This isolates the logical jump the author is making.
3
Evaluate the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument moves from a claim about a relative percentage (15% to 35%) to a claim about an absolute number. To determine the absolute number of high-speed accidents, one must know the total number of all highway accidents, which is missing from the stimulus.
If the total number of highway accidents dropped drastically, 35% of the new, smaller total could actually be fewer total high-speed accidents than 15% of the old, larger total.
4
Select the option that matches this structural error.
The correct option points out the conflation of a proportion (percentage) with an absolute frequency (number).
This directly describes the Percentages vs. Numbers Flaw present in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Percentages vs. Numbers Flaws occur when an argument treats information about proportions (percentages, fractions) as if it guarantees information about absolute quantities (numbers, totals), failing to account for potential changes in the overall baseline population.
Soru 506Soru →

Researchers recently observed that office workers who regularly consume green tea report experiencing significantly lower levels of daily stress than those who do not. Furthermore, among the workers observed, those who consume the greatest amount of green tea report the lowest stress levels. The researchers conclude that the antioxidants present in green tea act directly on the nervous system to reduce stress.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: An office worker's level of daily stress does not dictate their likelihood of consuming green tea.

Cevap

The argument depends on the assumption that an office worker's level of daily stress does not dictate their likelihood of consuming green tea (ruling out reverse causation).
The correct answer rules out the possibility of reverse causation. The argument observes a correlation between green tea and lower stress, and concludes that the tea causes the lower stress. For this causal claim to be valid, it must be true that the causal arrow does not point the other way. If it were true that having low stress naturally leads people to drink green tea, the conclusion would fall apart. Therefore, the argument implicitly assumes that an individual's stress level is not what dictates their tea consumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the premises and conclusion.
Premise: There is a dose-dependent correlation between green tea consumption and lower stress. Conclusion: Antioxidants in green tea directly reduce stress.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step in identifying the logical gap.
2
Identify the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises only establish a correlation, but the conclusion claims a specific causal relationship (A causes B).
Causal conclusions drawn from correlational data always contain logical gaps, as there are alternative explanations for the correlation.
3
Determine what type of assumption is needed to bridge this gap.
A necessary assumption is required. This often takes the form of a 'Defender' assumption that rules out an alternate cause or reverse causation.
The question stem asks for an assumption the argument 'depends' on.
4
Evaluate the options using the Negation Test.
Negating the correct option yields: 'An office worker's level of daily stress DOES dictate their likelihood of consuming green tea.' If low stress causes people to drink tea, the conclusion that tea causes low stress is undermined.
The Negation Test is the definitive way to prove a necessary assumption. If the negated option destroys the argument, it is the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling out reverse causation in causal arguments
Soru 507Soru →

Match each causal argument below to the specific category of necessary assumption it fundamentally relies upon.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Following a new city public relations campaign, local tourism rose by 15 percent. The mayor concluded that the campaign caused the increase in tourism.
A study shows that individuals who exercise regularly are more likely to report feeling happy. Researchers conclude that exercise causes an increase in happiness.
Data reveals that months with high ice cream sales also experience high drowning rates. A report concludes that eating ice cream increases the risk of drowning.
Patients taking a new experimental supplement recovered from the flu in exactly five days. The creators claim that the supplement cures the flu.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The PR campaign argument matches with eliminating alternate causes. The exercise argument matches with eliminating reverse causality. The ice cream argument matches with eliminating a third-variable common cause. The flu supplement argument matches with establishing a control baseline.
Each argument precisely demonstrates a classic causal reasoning gap. The PR campaign relies on eliminating alternate causes for a subsequent event. The exercise study relies on eliminating reverse causality. The ice cream correlation relies on eliminating a third shared cause. The flu remedy relies on assuming the effect wouldn't occur naturally.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the public relations argument to identify its specific logical leap.
The argument assumes that because the campaign preceded the tourism increase, it caused it. It matches the assumption that no other independent factor caused the effect.
Chronological arguments typically require ruling out alternate events occurring at the same time.
2
Analyze the exercise and happiness argument.
The argument jumps from a correlation between two states of being to a specific causal direction. It matches the assumption that the effect (happiness) did not cause the cause (exercise).
When two traits exist simultaneously, the causal relationship could logically go in either direction, requiring the assumption that reverse causality is false.
3
Analyze the ice cream and drowning argument.
The argument connects two unrelated events occurring at the same time. It matches the assumption that a third variable does not cause both.
When two entirely distinct phenomena correlate, a common cause (like weather) is the most likely alternative explanation that must be assumed away.
4
Analyze the flu supplement argument.
The argument notes an outcome after an action without a comparison. It matches the assumption that the flu would not have resolved naturally in the same timeframe.
Arguments about medical or temporal interventions must assume a baseline where the intervention's absence leads to a different outcome.

Anahtar Kavram

Assumptions in Causal Arguments
Soru 508Soru →

Match each apparent discrepancy (left) with the new premise (right) that most effectively resolves the paradox.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A public health initiative offered free, extensive medical check-ups to encourage healthier lifestyles; surprisingly, the community's reported rate of severe illness increased significantly the following year.
A grocery chain heavily reduced the price of its budget-brand bread to attract more low-income shoppers; however, the total number of loaves of this specific bread sold dropped sharply.
A municipality replaced all its public streetlights with energy-efficient bulbs that use half the electricity per hour; nevertheless, the city's overall energy expenditure for street lighting increased.
A species of frog developed a much louder mating call to attract mates from further away; yet, the average number of offspring produced by the frog population severely decreased.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings resolve each discrepancy by addressing the hidden variables: diagnostic discovery rates (L1 to R3), consumer perception of value (L2 to R4), expanded municipal infrastructure (L3 to R1), and predator attraction (L4 to R2).
Each correct match provides a new piece of factual information that allows both seemingly contradictory premises in the original stimulus to be true simultaneously. They act as logical bridges by introducing factors like measurement bias, psychological signaling, scope expansion, and ecological trade-offs.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the public health paradox (L1)
Identify that an increase in 'reported rate' does not mean people got sicker, just that more sickness was found. This matches the diagnostic testing premise (R3).
Resolving a discrepancy involving statistics often requires distinguishing between actual numbers and reported/discovered numbers.
2
Analyze the grocery pricing paradox (L2)
Identify that a price drop leading to a sales drop means the price drop actively discouraged buyers. This matches the consumer assumption of inferior quality premise (R4).
Resolving behavioral discrepancies requires understanding how actions alter human perception and incentives.
3
Analyze the streetlight energy paradox (L3)
Identify that if individual unit efficiency improves but total cost rises, the number of units must have increased. This matches the municipal expansion premise (R1).
Resolving a rate vs. total amount paradox requires looking at the total volume or scope of the subject.
4
Analyze the frog evolutionary paradox (L4)
Identify that an adaptation meant to increase mating must have a stronger counter-effect that reduces offspring. This matches the increased predation premise (R2).
Resolving biological paradoxes often involves unintended consequences in the broader ecosystem.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Conflicting Premises
Soru 509Soru →

Analyze the following flawed arguments, all of which share a common set of variables regarding commercial development. Match each argument with the specific missing assumption required to make its conclusion logically follow.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Any commercial development approved by the Planning Commission passes the mandatory environmental audit. It logically follows that any development approved by the Planning Commission is guaranteed to receive a municipal tax subsidy.
A commercial development is awarded a municipal tax subsidy provided that it incorporates extensive green spaces. Therefore, any development that incorporates extensive green spaces will undoubtedly be approved by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission approves a commercial development if that development receives a municipal tax subsidy. Consequently, no commercial development can receive a municipal tax subsidy unless it incorporates extensive green spaces.
Any commercial development that passes the mandatory environmental audit is awarded a municipal tax subsidy. From this, one can conclude that a development will receive a municipal tax subsidy whenever it incorporates extensive green spaces.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 pairs with the assumption that failing to receive a subsidy implies failing the audit. Argument 2 pairs with the assumption that a subsidy requires Planning Commission approval. Argument 3 pairs with the assumption that approval guarantees green spaces. Argument 4 pairs with the assumption that incorporating green spaces requires passing the audit.
Each argument contains a logical gap between its premises and its conclusion. By translating the statements into formal conditional logic, we can identify the exact missing premise required for the conclusion to be drawn validly. Argument 1 requires E -> T, which matches the contrapositive statement ~T -> ~E. Argument 2 requires T -> P, which matches the 'unless' statement translating to ~P -> ~T. Argument 3 requires P -> G, which matches the 'guarantees' statement. Argument 4 requires G -> E, which matches the 'only if' statement.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Define variables for the four recurring elements across all arguments.
Let P = Approved by Planning Commission, E = Passes environmental audit, T = Receives tax subsidy, G = Incorporates green spaces.
Standardizing variables prevents confusion since all arguments use the exact same vocabulary but in different logical structures.
2
Determine the formal logic gap for Argument 1 and find the matching assumption.
Premise: P -> E. Conclusion: P -> T. The gap is E -> T. The assumption 'Failing to receive... subsidy (~T) implies... did not pass... audit (~E)' is the contrapositive of E -> T.
A valid assumption must logically bridge the stated premise to the derived conclusion.
3
Determine the formal logic gap for Argument 2 and find the matching assumption.
Premise: G -> T (from 'T provided that G'). Conclusion: G -> P. The gap is T -> P. The assumption 'cannot receive... subsidy (~T) unless approved (P)' translates to ~P -> ~T, or T -> P.
The 'unless' indicator translates to a necessary condition. 'A unless B' means 'If not B, then A' (~B -> A).
4
Determine the formal logic gap for Argument 3 and find the matching assumption.
Premise: T -> P. Conclusion: T -> G (from 'no T unless G'). The gap is P -> G. The assumption 'Approval guarantees... green spaces' translates directly to P -> G.
To connect the sufficient condition (T) to the new necessary condition (G), the intermediate term (P) must guarantee (G).
5
Determine the formal logic gap for Argument 4 and find the matching assumption.
Premise: E -> T. Conclusion: G -> T (from 'T whenever G'). The gap is G -> E. The assumption 'G only if E' translates directly to G -> E.
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition, meaning the term before it is the sufficient condition.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying missing conditional links and translating complex conditional indicators (unless, provided that, whenever, implies, only if) into formal logic.
Soru 510Soru →

Urban Planner: To decrease traffic congestion in the downtown commercial district, the city plans to implement a new daily toll for any private vehicle entering the district during peak commuting hours. The city anticipates that this policy will successfully reduce the number of private vehicles entering the district. Clearly, this toll will achieve its goal of significantly reducing overall traffic congestion in the downtown commercial district.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The anticipated decrease in the number of private vehicles will not be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the number of commercial or public vehicles entering the downtown commercial district.

Cevap

The argument depends on the assumption that the anticipated decrease in private vehicles will not be offset by a corresponding increase in other types of vehicles.
This statement is logically required by the argument. The argument concludes that overall traffic congestion will decrease based solely on the premise that private vehicle traffic will decrease. For this conclusion to hold, it must be true that other forms of traffic (like commercial or public vehicles) do not increase enough to offset the reduction in private vehicles. If they did, overall congestion would not decrease.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the daily toll will significantly reduce overall traffic congestion in the downtown commercial district.
Understanding the exact scope of the conclusion is the first step in evaluating any logical argument.
2
Identify the supporting premise.
The premise is that the toll policy will successfully reduce the number of private vehicles entering the district.
We must determine what evidence the author uses to justify the conclusion.
3
Find the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument shifts from a reduction in one specific type of vehicle (private) to a reduction in 'overall' traffic congestion. This ignores the possibility that other types of traffic might fill the void.
Necessary assumptions often bridge a gap between the specific terms in the premises and the broader terms in the conclusion.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the suspected necessary assumption.
Negating the correct statement yields: 'The decrease in private vehicles WILL be accompanied by a corresponding increase in commercial or public vehicles.' This negated statement destroys the conclusion because overall traffic would not decrease.
The Negation Test is the definitive way to prove whether a statement is strictly necessary for an argument to logically hold.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary assumptions must be logically required for the conclusion to be true; often they defend the argument against alternative possibilities that would prevent the premise from leading to the conclusion.
Soru 511Soru →

Read the argument below and evaluate whether the provided statement functions as a necessary assumption.

Historian: The invention of writing must have been driven by the need to manage the increasingly complex trade networks of early agricultural surpluses, not by the administrative demands of large-scale monumental building projects. The traditional theory favoring monumental architecture as the primary catalyst is decisively refuted by recent excavations at Oruk, which reveal that complex record-keeping systems were fully established centuries before the construction of any such monuments.

Statement: The administrative demands associated with large-scale monumental building projects did not arise centuries before the actual physical construction of such monuments began.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The statement is a necessary assumption.
The correct answer is True because the statement is a necessary assumption required for the argument's logic to hold. The historian concludes that trade networks, rather than monument building, catalyzed the invention of writing. The sole evidence provided is chronological: writing systems were established centuries before any monuments were physically constructed. For this evidence to successfully refute the traditional theory, the historian must assume that the administrative demands of monument building did not precede the actual construction by centuries. We can prove this is necessary using the Negation Technique. If we negate the statement—assuming that the administrative demands did arise centuries before actual construction began, perhaps for long-term resource gathering or site planning—then it is entirely possible that these early administrative demands drove the invention of writing. This destroys the historian's premise that the timeline refutes the traditional theory, which in turn causes the main conclusion to collapse.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the argument.
Conclusion: Trade networks, not monument building, caused the invention of writing. Premise: Writing existed centuries before monument construction began.
Identifying the core logic and identifying any leaps in reasoning is the first step.
2
Identify the logical gap.
The historian assumes that the timeline of physical construction directly mirrors the timeline of its administrative demands.
To refute a causal relationship based on a timeline, the cause itself must not predate the effect.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the statement.
Negated statement: The administrative demands of monument building DID arise centuries before actual construction began.
The Negation Technique is the definitive test for a necessary assumption.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement.
If the demands arose centuries earlier, they could have caused the invention of writing. The traditional theory survives, destroying the argument's conclusion.
If the logical negation destroys the argument, the original statement is a strictly necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions using the Negation Technique on 'Defender' assumptions that rule out alternate timelines.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 512Soru →

If a plant is a healthy fern, then it thrives in high humidity. This particular houseplant does not thrive in high humidity. Therefore, this houseplant is not a healthy fern.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its logical structure to the argument presented above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If a building is a modern skyscraper, then it requires a deep steel foundation. The new city library does not require a deep steel foundation. Therefore, the new city library is not a modern skyscraper.

Cevap

The argument concerning the modern skyscraper and the deep steel foundation.
The correct answer precisely duplicates the valid Modus Tollens structure found in the stimulus. The stimulus establishes a conditional rule (If Healthy Fern -> High Humidity), observes the absence of the necessary condition (No High Humidity), and validly concludes the absence of the sufficient condition (Not a Healthy Fern). The correct argument mirrors this exactly: It sets a rule (If Skyscraper -> Steel Foundation), observes the absence of the necessary condition (No Steel Foundation), and concludes the absence of the sufficient condition (Not a Skyscraper).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure of the stimulus argument.
The stimulus uses a valid 'Modus Tollens' structure: Premise 1 is 'If A (fern), then B (humidity)'. Premise 2 is 'Not B (does not thrive in humidity)'. The Conclusion is 'Therefore, Not A (not a fern)'.
Identifying the formal structure of the original argument is required to find its parallel match.
2
Evaluate the options for a matching valid structure.
The option about the skyscraper states: 'If A (skyscraper), then B (steel foundation). Not B (no steel foundation). Therefore, Not A (not a skyscraper).'
This structural match perfectly duplicates the valid deduction of the stimulus.
3
Eliminate options with flawed reasoning or mismatched quantifiers.
Options exhibiting illegal reversal, illegal negation, or using 'most' instead of 'if' are eliminated, regardless of subject matter.
Parallel valid reasoning requires exact duplication of both the deductive architecture and the certainty level.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Valid Structure (Modus Tollens)
Soru 513Soru →

Match each of the following arguments to the statement that most accurately describes the specific false dilemma it commits.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Financial analysts assert that the unprecedented stabilization of the currency markets must stem either from the central bank’s aggressive quantitative tightening or from a sudden collapse in speculative retail trading. Yet, recent data confirms that retail speculation has remained robust throughout the fiscal year. Consequently, the central bank’s tightening measures are solely responsible for the market's newfound stability.
Urban planners argue that to mitigate the escalating housing crisis in the metropolitan area, the city must either abolish all historical preservation zoning or implement draconian rent control across all districts. Abolishing historical zoning would destroy the city's cultural heritage, an unacceptable outcome. Therefore, the city has no alternative but to enforce comprehensive rent control.
Marine biologists have observed a sudden halt in the expansion of the indigenous coral reefs, a phenomenon they attribute either to rising mean ocean temperatures or to a spike in localized ocean acidification. Since continuous longitudinal studies indicate that the local pH levels have remained exceptionally stable, the stagnation must be driven entirely by the rising temperatures.
Historians debating the primary function of early megalithic structures contend they were engineered either to accurately track celestial movements for agricultural timing or to consolidate political authority among a ruling elite. However, archaeological evidence clearly demonstrates these societies relied on resilient crops that did not require precise seasonal planting. Thus, the structures were unequivocally tools for political consolidation.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings map each argument to the specific third alternative or middle-ground option that its premises fallaciously fail to consider, thereby exposing the false dichotomy in each scenario.
Each argument structurally commits a False Dilemma by presenting exactly two options (A or B), eliminating one (not A), and concluding the other (therefore B). The flaw in this reasoning is the assumption that A and B are the ONLY options. The correct pairings accurately describe the unstated alternative option that the argument's author failed to consider.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the financial markets argument.
Identify the false dilemma restricting the causes of stabilization to central bank tightening or retail speculation collapse.
To determine what alternative causes are excluded, such as institutional investment or macroeconomic shifts.
2
Analyze the urban planning argument.
Identify the false dilemma forcing a choice between abolishing historic zoning and enforcing rent control.
To find the overlooked middle-ground solutions, such as building high-density developments in non-historic zones.
3
Analyze the marine biology argument.
Identify the false dilemma limiting the causes to rising temperatures or acidification.
To recognize that other local ecological factors like nutrient runoff or disease were ignored.
4
Analyze the historical architecture argument.
Identify the false dilemma assuming the structures were either for agricultural timing or political consolidation.
To expose the failure to consider religious, defensive, or other communal motivations.

Anahtar Kavram

A False Dilemma (or False Dichotomy) occurs when an argument presents two options as the only possible choices, exhaustive and mutually exclusive, while ignoring other viable alternatives or middle grounds.
Soru 514Soru →

A regional hospital implemented a strict new triage protocol to reduce the burden on its emergency department. The protocol successfully redirects all patients with minor, non-critical injuries to an affiliated urgent care facility. A year after implementation, an internal audit confirmed that the emergency department had not treated a single non-critical patient. Nevertheless, the audit also revealed that the average cost of treatment per patient in the emergency department had risen by 35 percent compared to the year before the protocol was introduced.

Statement: The apparent discrepancy is successfully resolved if it is true that by removing the large volume of inexpensive, non-critical cases from the emergency department, the only cases remaining to be averaged were severe traumas and complex emergencies, which inherently require the most expensive medical interventions.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The statement successfully resolves the paradox by explaining how removing low-cost cases increases the average cost of the remaining patient pool.
The correct answer is True. The statement successfully bridges the conflicting premises by highlighting a shift in the composition of the patient population. The original average cost was a blend of many inexpensive treatments (minor injuries) and some expensive treatments (severe traumas). By effectively removing all the inexpensive treatments from the emergency department, the hospital ensured that the new average would be calculated exclusively from the highly expensive cases. This mathematical reality perfectly explains how the average cost per patient could rise by 35 percent even though the protocol worked exactly as intended.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conflicting premises presented in the scenario.
The hospital successfully eliminated minor, low-cost injuries from the emergency department, yet the average cost per patient treated there increased by 35 percent.
Understanding the exact nature of the discrepancy is required before evaluating potential resolutions.
2
Evaluate the mechanism proposed in the statement.
The statement suggests that the increase in average cost is a direct mathematical result of removing inexpensive cases, leaving only the most expensive, severe traumas to be calculated in the new average.
We must determine if this new information logically allows both original premises to coexist without contradicting either one.
3
Apply logical and statistical reasoning to the proposed mechanism.
If the lowest values (inexpensive cases) are removed from a dataset, the average of the remaining values (expensive cases) will inevitably be higher than the original combined average.
This confirms that the proposed mechanism perfectly explains the surprising statistical outcome.

Anahtar Kavram

Resolving Statistical Paradoxes Involving Averages

Alternatif Yöntem

You can verify the logic by substituting hypothetical numbers: Assume 100 minor cases cost 100each,and10severecasescost100 each, and 10 severe cases cost 10,000 each. The original average is 110,000/110patients=110,000 / 110 patients = 1,000 per patient. If the protocol removes all 100 minor cases, the new average is 100,000/10patients=100,000 / 10 patients = 10,000 per patient. The average increased drastically simply by removing the low-cost cases.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 515Soru →

When evaluating arguments on the LSAT, determining whether an assumption is strictly necessary requires properly applying the Negation Technique. This involves identifying the precise logical contradictory of a candidate statement. Match each candidate assumption regarding workforce productivity on the left with its precise logical negation on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Any systemic transition to a compressed four-day workweek will inherently precipitate a sustained increase in aggregate workforce productivity.
Only a systemic transition to a compressed four-day workweek possesses the capacity to precipitate a sustained increase in aggregate workforce productivity.
Most systemic transitions to a compressed four-day workweek will precipitate a sustained increase in aggregate workforce productivity.
At least some systemic transitions to a compressed four-day workweek will precipitate a sustained increase in aggregate workforce productivity.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings isolate the specific quantifiers ('Any', 'Only', 'Most', 'Some') and match them with their precise logical contradictories.
Applying the Negation Technique effectively requires understanding the mathematical boundaries of logical quantifiers. 'Any' (100%) is contradicted by 'Not All' (<100%). 'Only' establishes a mandatory necessary condition, which is logically negated by showing alternatives exist. 'Most' (>50%) is negated by its mathematical complement (≤50%). 'Some' (>0%) is negated by 'None' (0%).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the quantifier in 'Any systemic transition...'
The statement asserts 'All X are Y'. The logical contradictory is 'At least one X is not Y', which matches the option stating 'At least one... will fail'.
Negating a universal statement requires showing it is not absolute, rather than proposing its polar opposite ('None').
2
Analyze the restrictive conditional 'Only a systemic transition...'
The statement asserts 'No non-X is Y'. The contradictory is 'At least one non-X is Y', which matches the option stating the outcome 'could be precipitated by structural changes other than' the transition.
The negation of a necessary condition demonstrates that the necessary requirement could be bypassed, meaning the result can be achieved through alternative means.
3
Analyze the majority quantifier in 'Most systemic transitions...'
The statement asserts 'More than 50% of X are Y'. The contradictory encompasses the remaining mathematical space: '50% or fewer', matching the 'Half or fewer' option.
A common logical flaw is negating 'Most' with 'None' or 'Some are not', but the true logical contradictory splits the 100% distribution precisely at the 50% threshold.
4
Analyze the existential quantifier in 'At least some systemic transitions...'
The statement asserts 'At least one X is Y' (1% to 100%). The contradictory must cover the remaining space (0%), which matches 'No systemic transition...'.
If it is false that 'some' (even one) exist, then it must logically follow that 'none' exist.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical Quantifier Negation
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 516Soru →

Biologist: The prehistoric canid *Aetocyon* must have lived and hunted in large social groups. The recent discovery of fossilized *Aetocyon* reveals that these animals had highly specialized jaw structures adapted exclusively for crushing large bones. In the modern world, bone-crushing predators such as spotted hyenas hunt in large, coordinated packs in order to take down large prey.

Which of the following are necessary assumptions on which the biologist's argument depends? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: *Aetocyon* did not rely predominantly on scavenging the kills of other animals to obtain the large bones it crushed.; A single *Aetocyon* was physically incapable of taking down the large prey animals from which the crushed bones were derived.

Cevap

The correct statements are that the animal did not rely predominantly on scavenging, and that a single individual was incapable of taking down the large prey.
The biologist argues that because modern bone-crushing predators hunt in large packs to take down large prey, the prehistoric canid must have done the same. This reasoning relies on bridging two distinct logical gaps. First, it assumes the canid acquired large bones by hunting rather than scavenging. By applying the Negation Technique, if the animal DID rely predominantly on scavenging, the need for a large pack to take down prey is eliminated, destroying the argument. Second, the argument assumes a single animal could not take down large prey on its own. If one individual WAS physically capable of taking down large prey alone, there would be no requirement for them to hunt in large, coordinated packs, which also causes the conclusion to collapse.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into its core components.
Conclusion: The prehistoric animal must have lived and hunted in large social groups. Premises: It had bone-crushing jaws; modern bone-crushers hunt in large packs to take down large prey.
Identifying the exact conclusion and the supporting evidence is necessary to locate the logical gaps.
2
Identify the unstated logical leaps.
The argument leaps from 'bone-crushing jaws' to 'hunting in packs'. It assumes the animal actually hunted its own large prey instead of scavenging, and that the prey was too large for a solitary hunter.
A necessary assumption is an unstated premise that bridges a gap and must be true for the conclusion to stand.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to test the options.
Negating the correct statements causes the argument to fail. If the animal scavenged predominantly, or if it could hunt large prey alone, the conclusion that it MUST have hunted in large packs is destroyed.
The Negation Technique definitively proves whether an assumption is logically required by the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions using the Negation Technique
Soru 517Soru →

Agronomist: The crop yields of farms in the Delta region have increased by 20 percent since a new soil-aeration technique was introduced three years ago. The developer of this technique claims that it improves nutrient absorption, directly causing the surge in yields. However, this claim is incorrect; the true cause of the increased yields is the unusually favorable rainfall pattern the Delta region has experienced over the same three-year period.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence to support the agronomist's conclusion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Farms in the neighboring Echo region, which experienced the exact same favorable rainfall patterns but did not adopt the new soil-aeration technique, also saw a 20 percent increase in crop yields over the last three years.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that farms in the neighboring Echo region experienced the exact same favorable rainfall patterns but did not adopt the new soil-aeration technique, and still saw a 20 percent increase in crop yields.
The agronomist claims that favorable rainfall, rather than a newly introduced soil-aeration technique, caused a 20 percent increase in crop yields. This is a classic causal argument where two potential causes occurred at the same time. The correct answer provides a perfect control scenario: a neighboring region that experienced the exact same rainfall but did NOT use the new technique. Because this control region also experienced the identical 20 percent yield increase, it strongly supports the conclusion that the rainfall alone is sufficient to cause the surge, effectively isolating it as the true variable.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the premises of the argument.
The main conclusion is that unusually favorable rainfall caused the 20 percent increase in crop yields. The premises are that yields increased after the introduction of a new aeration technique, but favorable rainfall also occurred concurrently.
Evaluating an argument requires a precise understanding of the causal claim the author is attempting to prove.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the agronomist's reasoning.
The agronomist asserts that rainfall, rather than the aeration technique, caused the yield increase, but provides no evidence to definitively separate the effects of these two simultaneous variables.
Identifying the missing link allows you to determine what specific evidence is needed to strengthen the argument.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that isolates the agronomist's proposed cause.
The correct option demonstrates that in a comparable region where only the rainfall occurred (without the aeration technique), the exact same yield increase resulted.
In causal reasoning, showing a 'cause without effect' or an 'effect without the rival cause' (a control group) is the most robust way to strengthen a specific causal hypothesis.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening Causal Arguments via Control Groups
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 518Soru →

Philosopher: A political doctrine cannot be considered genuinely egalitarian unless it categorically repudiates the concept of inherited executive authority, except in systems where the exercise of such authority is entirely symbolic. The foundational charters of the Valesian Order establish a governance model predicated on inherited executive authority. Consequently, the Valesian charters fail to offer a genuinely egalitarian political doctrine.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: No governance model predicated on inherited executive authority restricts the exercise of that authority to entirely symbolic functions.

Cevap

The correct assumption is that no governance model predicated on inherited executive authority restricts the exercise of that authority to entirely symbolic functions.
The philosopher's rule states that to be genuinely egalitarian, a doctrine must EITHER repudiate inherited authority OR possess authority that is entirely symbolic. The Valesian charters do not repudiate inherited authority. Therefore, to validly conclude that they are definitively not egalitarian, we must assume they also fail the second condition (i.e., their authority is not entirely symbolic). The correct statement provides a universal rule that any model with inherited authority (which the Valesian charters have) inherently fails to be entirely symbolic. This closes the logical gap and forces the conclusion to be 100% true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the formal logic of the philosopher's primary principle.
Genuinely Egalitarian -> Repudiates Inherited Authority OR Authority is Entirely Symbolic.
The phrase 'cannot be... unless... except when' creates a compound necessary condition. A doctrine must meet at least one of those two conditions to be considered egalitarian.
2
Analyze the application of the principle to the Valesian Order.
The Valesian charters establish inherited authority, meaning they fail the 'Repudiates Inherited Authority' condition.
The stimulus states the charters are 'predicated on inherited executive authority.'
3
Identify the logical gap leading to the conclusion.
The author concludes the charters are NOT egalitarian. For this to be definitively true, the charters must also fail the second necessary condition: their authority must NOT be entirely symbolic.
If the Valesian authority were entirely symbolic, it could still theoretically be egalitarian under the philosopher's rule. We must eliminate this possibility to guarantee the conclusion.
4
Evaluate the correct assumption.
The statement 'No governance model predicated on inherited executive authority restricts... to entirely symbolic functions' translates to: Inherited Authority -> NOT Entirely Symbolic.
Because the Valesian charters have inherited authority, this assumption guarantees their authority is not entirely symbolic, failing both necessary conditions and strictly proving they are not egalitarian.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumptions with Compound Necessary Conditions
Soru 519Soru →

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

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Sociologist: A comprehensive ten-year study reveals that neighborhoods featuring numerous public parks consistently exhibit the highest levels of civic engagement. Therefore, city planners can directly foster community participation by investing in the construction of new green spaces.
Business Analyst: Any corporation that successfully dominates its market sector possesses a highly adaptable executive board. Given that the leadership at OmniCorp has demonstrated extraordinary flexibility during recent industry shifts, the company is virtually guaranteed to achieve market dominance.
Administrator: Critics allege that our institution is admitting a smaller total number of local residents than we did in the past. This is demonstrably false. Our internal records clearly show that local residents now comprise 35 percent of the incoming freshman class, a significant increase from just 22 percent five years ago.
Ethicist: Some critics argue that the corporation's aggressive takeover strategy is deeply unfair to small competitors. However, fairness essentially means playing by the rules of the game. Since the corporation has meticulously followed every financial regulation and broken no laws, its strategy must be considered entirely fair.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Sociologist's argument demonstrates a correlation-causation flaw. The Business Analyst's argument demonstrates a necessary vs. sufficient flaw. The Administrator's argument demonstrates a percentage vs. number flaw. The Ethicist's argument demonstrates an equivocation flaw.
Each argument commits a classic logical fallacy. The Sociologist infers causation from correlation. The Business Analyst treats a necessary condition as a sufficient condition. The Administrator attempts to refute a claim about raw numbers using only percentage data. The Ethicist shifts the meaning of 'fairness' from an ethical standard to a strictly legal one.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Sociologist's argument to identify its logical gap.
The premise establishes a correlation between parks and engagement, while the conclusion claims parks directly cause the engagement.
Identifying the leap from association to causation reveals the structural error.
2
Examine the Business Analyst's conditional reasoning regarding market dominance.
The argument establishes an adaptable board as a requirement, but concludes that it guarantees dominance.
Recognizing the illegal reversal isolates the necessary vs. sufficient fallacy.
3
Evaluate the metrics used in the Administrator's defense.
The critics discuss a total number (absolute magnitude), while the Administrator's counter-evidence only cites a percentage (fractional share).
Contrasting the units of measurement highlights the percentage vs. number flaw.
4
Deconstruct the Ethicist's argument about corporate fairness.
The critics use 'unfair' as a moral evaluation, while the Ethicist redefines 'fairness' as mere procedural legality.
Tracking the changing definition of the core concept exposes the equivocation.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical Reasoning: Flaw in the Reasoning
Soru 520Soru →

Energy Analyst: In the year 2010, coal power plants generated 40 percent of the electricity consumed in our country. Last year, coal power plants generated only 25 percent of the electricity consumed. It is clear, then, that the country's coal power plants generated a smaller absolute amount of electricity last year than they did in 2010.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the energy analyst's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: treats a decrease in a specific energy source's percentage of total electricity as sufficient to conclude that the absolute amount of electricity generated by that source has decreased.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument treats a decrease in a specific energy source's percentage of total electricity as sufficient to conclude that the absolute amount of electricity generated by that source has decreased.
The argument concludes that the absolute amount of electricity generated by coal decreased, basing this claim entirely on the fact that coal's percentage of the total electricity consumption decreased. This is a classic 'Percentages vs. Numbers' flaw. To determine an absolute number from a percentage, one must know the total size of the whole. If the country's total electricity consumption increased substantially between 2010 and last year, the absolute amount generated by coal could have actually increased, even though its proportional share of the total decreased.

Here is a hypothetical scenario demonstrating the flaw:

YearTotal Electricity ConsumedCoal's PercentageAbsolute Coal Electricity
2010100 units40%40 units
Last Year200 units25%50 units (An increase!)
The author completely overlooks this possibility, erroneously assuming the total remained static.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises.
Premise 1: In 2010, coal generated 40 percent of the total electricity. Premise 2: Last year, coal generated only 25 percent of the total electricity.
Deconstructing the argument is the critical first step in identifying structural flaws.
2
Identify the argument's conclusion.
The absolute amount of electricity generated by coal was smaller last year than it was in 2010.
Understanding exactly what the author is trying to prove is necessary to evaluate the logic.
3
Compare the nature of the evidence to the nature of the conclusion.
The evidence consists purely of percentages (proportions of a whole), while the conclusion is a definitive claim about an absolute numerical value (amount of electricity).
A mismatch in the type of information presented in the premises versus the conclusion usually points directly to the logical flaw.
4
Test the validity of the inference using hypothetical numbers.
If the total electricity consumed in 2010 was 100 units, coal generated 40 units (40%). If the total electricity consumed last year was 200 units, coal generated 50 units (25%).
Using concrete numbers proves that a percentage can decrease while the absolute number simultaneously increases, provided the total size of the group grows.
5
Select the option that matches this flaw.
The correct option correctly identifies that the author improperly infers a decrease in absolute amount based solely on a decrease in percentage.
This is a textbook 'Percentages vs. Numbers' flaw, a common pattern on the LSAT.

Anahtar Kavram

Percentages vs. Numbers Flaws
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
ÖncekiSayfa 26 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin