Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 41Soru →

A recent study of municipal programs found that cities instituting "pay-as-you-throw" waste disposal systems—where residents are charged a fee based on the weight of their non-recyclable trash—saw a 40 percent increase in the total tonnage of materials collected in residential recycling bins during the first year. The study's authors conclude from this that the financial penalty successfully motivated residents to properly sort and recycle a much larger proportion of their eligible household waste.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: In the year following the system's implementation, recycling facilities in these cities reported a drastic increase in heavy, non-recyclable garbage being improperly disposed of in residential recycling bins.

Cevap

The correct answer is the one stating that facilities reported a drastic increase in heavy, non-recyclable garbage being improperly disposed of in residential recycling bins.
The correct answer successfully weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the 40 percent increase in tonnage. If residents are putting heavy, non-recyclable trash into their recycling bins to avoid paying the new weight-based fees for normal trash, then the increased weight in the recycling bins does not mean they are 'properly sorting and recycling' more eligible waste. This completely severs the logical link between the statistical premise and the behavioral conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premise and conclusion.
Premise: Tonnage of materials in recycling bins increased by 40% after implementing a fee for non-recyclable trash. Conclusion: The fee motivated residents to properly sort and recycle more eligible waste.
Isolating the gap between the evidence provided and the author's interpretation is the first step in any Weaken question.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the author's reasoning.
The author assumes that the increased weight in the recycling bins is composed strictly of properly sorted, eligible recyclable waste.
In Weaken questions based on statistics or data, the conclusion often misinterprets what the data actually represents or ignores alternative causes.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find a statement that exploits this specific logical gap.
The option regarding heavy, non-recyclable garbage being improperly placed in recycling bins directly attacks the assumption by providing an alternative explanation for the increased tonnage.
If the increased weight is actually due to residents cheating the system to avoid fees, then they are not properly sorting their waste, which destroys the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Alternative Explanations for Correlated Data
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 42Soru →

Which of the following arguments contain a reasoning flaw that arises specifically from confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A thriving coral reef ecosystem always contains a diverse population of symbiotic algae. The reef off the coast of San Marcos contains a diverse population of symbiotic algae, which means it must be a thriving coral reef ecosystem.; If a municipality increases its public transportation budget, downtown traffic congestion will decrease. The city council decided against increasing the public transportation budget, so downtown traffic congestion will not decrease.

Cevap

The argument about the coral reef ecosystem (which commits an illegal reversal) and the argument about the public transportation budget (which commits an illegal negation).
The correct arguments demonstrate the two primary ways to confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. The coral reef argument illustrates an illegal reversal by assuming that meeting a necessary requirement (having diverse algae) is sufficient to guarantee the outcome. The public transportation argument illustrates an illegal negation by assuming that failing to meet a sufficient condition (increasing the budget) guarantees that the outcome (decreased congestion) will not occur.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the logical flaw requested in the question stem.
The target flaw is confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition, which manifests as either an illegal reversal (A -> B; therefore B -> A) or an illegal negation (A -> B; therefore ~A -> ~B).
Understanding the exact structural nature of the target flaw is required to evaluate each option.
2
Evaluate the conditional structure of the coral reef ecosystem argument.
Premise: Thriving -> Diverse Algae. Conclusion: Diverse Algae -> Thriving. This is an illegal reversal, which perfectly matches the target flaw.
This determines that the coral reef argument is one of the correct answers.
3
Evaluate the conditional structure of the software application argument.
Premise: Immune -> Patched. Conclusion: ~Patched -> ~Immune. This is a valid application of the contrapositive. There is no logical flaw.
This rules out the software application argument as it is structurally valid.
4
Evaluate the conditional structure of the public transportation argument.
Premise: Increased Budget -> Decreased Congestion. Conclusion: ~Increased Budget -> ~Decreased Congestion. This is an illegal negation, matching the target flaw.
This determines that the public transportation argument is the second correct answer.
5
Analyze the remaining two arguments to confirm they do not contain the target flaw.
The fermented foods argument contains a correlation-to-causation fallacy. The budget division argument confuses percentages with absolute numbers. Neither commits a conditional flaw.
This confirms that no other options should be selected.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying conditional reasoning flaws, specifically illegal reversals and illegal negations, where sufficient and necessary conditions are improperly interchanged.
Soru 43Soru →

Agricultural researchers recently noted a strong statistical correlation in the region of Valesia over the last decade: during the years when farmers planted the highest percentage of the newly developed 'Sun-Yield' wheat variety, the region also experienced the most severe outbreaks of the locust plague. The researchers concluded that the unique biological makeup of the Sun-Yield wheat must be attracting the locusts to the region.

Which of the following, if true, most effectively demonstrates that the researchers' conclusion is flawed? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Farmers in Valesia are advised by meteorologists to plant Sun-Yield wheat only during years when prolonged droughts are forecasted, and prolonged droughts are known to be the primary environmental trigger for mass locust hatchings.; Valesian farmers typically choose to plant Sun-Yield wheat only after observing unusually high numbers of locust larvae in their soil during the early spring, since Sun-Yield is uniquely capable of surviving a locust infestation.

Cevap

The correct answers are the option regarding prolonged droughts acting as a trigger for both events, and the option regarding farmers planting the wheat defensively after observing locust larvae.
The correct answers directly expose the flaw of assuming causation from correlation by providing alternative causal explanations for the observed data. One correct option demonstrates a third, common cause (prolonged droughts) that independently leads to both the increased planting of the wheat and the locust outbreaks. The other correct option demonstrates reverse causality, showing that the anticipated presence of locusts actually causes the farmers to plant the specific wheat variety as a defensive measure, completely undermining the claim that the wheat attracts the locusts.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the premises and the main conclusion.
Premise: A high percentage of Sun-Yield wheat correlates with severe locust plagues. Conclusion: The biological makeup of Sun-Yield wheat causes the locusts to be attracted to the region.
Understanding the components of the argument is necessary to evaluate its logical soundness and identify vulnerabilities.
2
Identify the logical flaw committed in moving from the premises to the conclusion.
The argument assumes that a statistical correlation implies a direct causal relationship, ignoring alternative explanations for the correlation.
Recognizing the flaw (Correlation vs. Causation) dictates what kind of evidence will weaken the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find those that exploit this specific flaw by providing valid alternative explanations.
Two options successfully weaken the argument: one provides a third common cause (droughts), and the other establishes reverse causality (locusts cause the planting of the wheat).
Valid correct answers in this context must directly address the erroneous causal leap rather than introducing irrelevant information or strengthening the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Correlation vs. Causation
Soru 44Soru →

A recent survey of corporate executives found that those who take frequent vacations are significantly more likely to receive promotions than those who take few vacations. The researchers concluded that taking time off from work reduces burnout, which in turn leads to career advancement.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Data shows that cities with an abundance of public parks tend to have higher average property values than cities with fewer parks. This demonstrates that building public spaces fosters community engagement, which consequently drives up real estate prices.

Cevap

The argument concluding that building public spaces fosters community engagement, which consequently drives up real estate prices.
The correct answer perfectly mirrors the logical structure of the stimulus. Both arguments begin with a premise establishing a statistical correlation between two phenomena (vacations and promotions; parks and property values). Both then conclude with a definitive causal relationship, notably introducing a brand-new intermediate mechanism in the conclusion to explain the causality (reduced burnout; community engagement) that was entirely absent from the premises.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural components of the stimulus argument.
Premise: Correlation between X (vacations) and Y (promotions). Conclusion: X causes an unstated intermediate factor Z (reduced burnout), which in turn causes Y.
Identifying the exact premise-to-conclusion logical pathway is required to find a structural match in Parallel Reasoning questions.
2
Identify the logical flaw and the specific causal features.
The argument makes a definitive causal claim based entirely on a statistical correlation, and uniquely introduces a novel intermediate explanatory mechanism in the conclusion.
The correct answer must replicate this exact causal jump, matching the direction of causality and the introduction of a middle step.
3
Evaluate the options against the stimulus structure.
The option concerning public parks matches perfectly: it moves from a correlation (parks and property values) to a definitive causal chain involving a new intermediate mechanism (community engagement).
Parallel arguments must match the causal direction, conclusion certainty, and structural quirks of the original argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Causal Reasoning
Soru 45Soru →

An anthropologist studied several isolated farming communities in the Andean highlands. The study revealed that communities primarily cultivating a specific heirloom variety of quinoa have significantly lower rates of cardiovascular disease than neighboring communities that cultivate standard commercial crops. Based on this observation, the anthropologist concluded that consuming this heirloom variety of quinoa provides unique protective benefits for cardiovascular health.

Which of the following are necessary assumptions required by the anthropologist's argument? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The communities cultivating the heirloom quinoa do not have other unique lifestyle habits that are the primary reason for their comparatively lower rates of cardiovascular disease.; The residents of the communities that cultivate the heirloom quinoa actually consume a significant portion of the heirloom quinoa they produce.

Cevap

The correct answers are the options stating that the communities do not have other unique lifestyle habits accounting for their health, and that the residents actually consume the quinoa they produce.
The argument requires two key unstated premises to bridge its logical gaps. First, because it moves from a premise about 'cultivating' to a conclusion about 'consuming', it must assume that the communities are actually eating the crops they grow. Second, because it assumes a causal relationship based on a correlation, it must assume that other potential causes (like different lifestyle habits) are not the true reason for the lower disease rates.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the premises and the main conclusion.
Premise: Communities cultivating heirloom quinoa have lower cardiovascular disease rates than those cultivating standard crops. Conclusion: Consuming the heirloom quinoa protects cardiovascular health.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to spot the logical gaps between the evidence provided and the claim being made.
2
Identify the shifts in language and logic between the premises and the conclusion.
There are two major gaps: 1) The shift from 'cultivating' in the premise to 'consuming' in the conclusion. 2) The shift from a mere correlation (quinoa cultivation and low disease rates) to a definitive causal claim (quinoa consumption causes the health benefit).
Identifying these gaps reveals the unstated premises (assumptions) the author relies upon to make the argument work.
3
Evaluate the options using the Negation Technique to test if they are strictly necessary for the conclusion to hold.
Negating the option about lifestyle habits (they DO have other habits causing the health benefits) destroys the conclusion. Negating the option about consumption (they DO NOT consume what they cultivate) severs the link to the conclusion. Both are necessary assumptions.
The Negation Technique is the most reliable way to confirm whether an assumption is truly necessary for a causal argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying necessary assumptions in causal reasoning (ruling out alternate causes and bridging language gaps).
Soru 46Soru →

Sociolinguist: In the isolated community of Vespera, young adults use traditional idioms far less frequently than older adults do. Based on this observation, some researchers conclude that traditional idioms in Vespera are inevitably dying out. This conclusion is unwarranted. Young adults in Vespera are systematically excluded from the Council of Elders, a prestigious governing body where the use of traditional idioms is both expected and heavily utilized during all proceedings.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the sociolinguist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some of Vespera's current young adults will eventually use traditional idioms upon becoming members of the Council of Elders.

Cevap

The correct statement is that at least some of Vespera's current young adults will eventually use traditional idioms upon becoming members of the Council of Elders.
The sociolinguist argues that traditional idioms are not dying out, relying on the fact that the Council of Elders heavily utilizes these idioms and currently excludes young adults. For this premise to guarantee the survival of the idioms after the older generation passes, it must be true that the younger generation will adopt the idioms when they eventually age into the Council. Applying the Negation Test confirms this: if we assume that none of the young adults will ever use the idioms even upon joining the Council, the sociolinguist's evidence becomes irrelevant and the argument collapses.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the sociolinguist's argument.
The conclusion is that the researchers' claim is unwarranted; therefore, traditional idioms in Vespera are not inevitably dying out.
Isolating the conclusion is the first prerequisite for finding the unstated assumption that supports it.
2
Identify the premise used to support this conclusion.
The supporting premise is that young adults are systematically excluded from the Council of Elders, a prestigious body where traditional idioms are mandatory.
The assumption will be the unstated link bridging this supporting evidence to the main conclusion.
3
Locate the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument jumps from the premise 'young adults are currently excluded from a council that uses idioms' to the conclusion 'idioms are not dying out.' This requires assuming that these young adults will eventually enter the council and adopt the idioms.
Necessary assumptions always address the missing logical link in the argument's structure.
4
Evaluate the choices using the Negation Test.
Negating the correct statement yields: 'None of the current young adults will ever use traditional idioms upon joining the Council.' This destroys the argument, proving it is the necessary assumption.
The Negation Test is the definitive way to prove whether an assumption is logically necessary for the conclusion to stand.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Test
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 47Soru →

Sociologist: A successful democracy requires an informed electorate. However, a populace can be considered truly informed only if a significant majority consumes media from a diverse array of ideological perspectives. Recent studies reveal that, driven by algorithmic curation, over 80 percent of voters in our nation consume news exclusively from sources that mirror their pre-existing political biases. Therefore, our nation's democratic institutions are inevitably headed for collapse.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the sociologist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A nation cannot avoid the collapse of its democratic institutions unless it maintains a successful democracy.

Cevap

The correct answer is the statement that a nation cannot avoid the collapse of its democratic institutions unless it maintains a successful democracy.
The argument deductively proves that our nation is not a successful democracy: a successful democracy requires an informed electorate, which requires a significant majority to consume diverse media (a condition our nation mathematically fails since over 80% consume exclusively biased news). However, the author jumps from 'not a successful democracy' to the extreme conclusion that institutions are 'inevitably headed for collapse.' To bridge this logical gap, the author must assume that failing to be a successful democracy guarantees institutional collapse. The correct answer provides this exact bridge using the 'unless' framework: 'cannot avoid collapse unless successful' translates formally to 'If a nation does not maintain a successful democracy, it will not avoid collapse (i.e., it will collapse).'

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the premises into formal conditional logic to find the intermediate deduction.
Successful Democracy -> Informed Electorate. Informed Electorate -> Significant majority consumes diverse media. Since >80% exclusively consume biased news, our nation lacks a significant majority consuming diverse media. Therefore, by contrapositive, our nation does not have an informed electorate, and thus is not a successful democracy.
Identifying what the premises logically prove is the first step in finding the gap to the final conclusion.
2
Identify the gap between the intermediate deduction and the main conclusion.
The intermediate deduction is that our nation is 'not a successful democracy.' The final conclusion is that our nation is 'inevitably headed for collapse.' The missing link is: 'If not a successful democracy, then inevitably headed for collapse.'
A necessary assumption must bridge the gap between what is proven and what is newly introduced in the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the options using conditional translation and the Negation Technique.
The correct option translates 'cannot avoid collapse unless successful' to 'If not successful, then collapse.' Negating this yields: 'A nation can avoid collapse even if it does not maintain a successful democracy.'
If this negation is true, the fact that our nation is not a successful democracy does not mean it must collapse, completely destroying the author's conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Technique to Complex Conditional Chains
Soru 48Soru →

Transportation Safety Board Director: A decade ago, mechanical failures accounted for 12%12\% of all commuter train cancellations nationwide. Last year, mechanical failures were responsible for 38%38\% of all commuter train cancellations. Because the standards for classifying a cancellation as due to a 'mechanical failure' have remained entirely unchanged throughout this ten-year period, it is clear that the actual number of commuter trains canceled because of mechanical issues has increased significantly.

The director's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: draws a conclusion about a change in an absolute quantity based solely on evidence concerning a change in proportions, without providing information about the overall total.

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it draws a conclusion about a change in an absolute quantity based solely on evidence concerning a change in proportions, without providing information about the overall total.
The argument concludes that the absolute number of mechanical cancellations went up simply because its share of total cancellations went up (from 12% to 38%). This reasoning is invalid because it assumes the total number of all cancellations remained roughly the same or increased. If the total number of cancellations dropped drastically over the decade, 38% of that new, smaller total could be a smaller absolute number than 12% of the original, larger total. The correct answer accurately identifies this unwarranted leap from percentages to absolute quantities.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises.
Premise 1: 10 years ago, mechanical failures = 12% of total cancellations. Premise 2: Last year, mechanical failures = 38% of total cancellations. Premise 3: Classification standards have not changed.
Understanding the exact evidence provided is required to evaluate the argument's structure.
2
Identify the main conclusion.
The actual number of commuter trains canceled because of mechanical issues has increased significantly.
Locating the conclusion allows you to see the gap between the evidence and the author's claim.
3
Analyze the logical gap (the flaw).
The premises provide percentages of a whole (total cancellations), but the conclusion makes a claim about an absolute number (the number of mechanical cancellations).
A percentage can only tell you about an absolute number if you know the size of the total baseline.
4
Test the reasoning with hypothetical numbers.
If there were 10,000 total cancellations a decade ago, 12% is 1,200. If improvements in scheduling and weather prediction dropped last year's total cancellations to 1,000, 38% is only 380. The absolute number would have decreased, not increased.
Testing with extreme numbers definitively proves the vulnerability in proportional reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Percentages vs. Numbers Flaws
Soru 49Soru →

Agricultural Commissioner: Over the past five years, the proportion of our region's total farmed acreage dedicated to growing the new drought-resistant sorghum has increased from 10 percent to 30 percent. Since farmers typically only expand the cultivation of a crop when it proves highly profitable, the absolute number of acres dedicated to growing drought-resistant sorghum in our region must be exactly three times what it was five years ago.

Which of the following statements must be true in order for the Agricultural Commissioner's conclusion to be logically drawn? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The total farmed acreage in the region is exactly the same today as it was five years ago.; The total number of acres dedicated to crops other than drought-resistant sorghum has decreased over the past five years.

Cevap

The statements that must be true are that the total farmed acreage is exactly the same today as it was five years ago, and that the total acreage dedicated to other crops has decreased.
The argument's conclusion requires the total acreage to remain unchanged. If total acreage changed, 30% of the new total would not equal exactly three times 10% of the old total. Consequently, if the total acreage is unchanged and sorghum's share grew by 20 percentage points, the share of all other crops must have shrunk by 20 percentage points, meaning their absolute acreage decreased.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the premises and the conclusion.
Premise: Sorghum acreage increased from 10% to 30% of total acreage. Conclusion: Absolute sorghum acreage is exactly three times what it was.
Identifying the structural components highlights the leap between proportional evidence and an absolute numerical claim.
2
Evaluate the mathematical relationship required to make the conclusion valid.
For an absolute number to triple when its corresponding percentage also triples, the baseline total must remain constant.
If the total acreage had grown, the absolute acreage of sorghum would have more than tripled. If it shrank, it would have less than tripled.
3
Determine the necessary mathematical consequences of a constant total.
If the total stays the same and sorghum takes up a larger slice (from 10% to 30%), the slice for all other crops must shrink (from 90% to 70%).
This confirms that both the constant total acreage and the resulting decrease in other acreage are logically necessary assumptions.

Anahtar Kavram

To validly infer an absolute numerical change from a percentage change, the underlying total (the baseline) must be known and accounted for.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 50Soru →

Public Health Official: A newly constructed water treatment facility in the county uses a chemical agent called Florazine to eliminate bacterial contaminants. Florazine has been proven in laboratory settings to neutralize beneficial aquatic microbes alongside harmful bacteria. Because these beneficial microbes are critical for breaking down heavy metals in the water supply, implementing this new treatment process will ultimately lead to a rise in neurological disorders among county residents.

Which of the following statements must be assumed for the public health official's conclusion to be logically drawn? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The presence of unbroken-down heavy metals in the county's water supply increases the risk of neurological disorders among its residents.; The concentration of Florazine used at the new facility is sufficient to neutralize enough beneficial microbes to impede the breakdown of heavy metals.

Cevap

The correct assumptions are that the presence of heavy metals increases the risk of neurological disorders, and that the concentration of Florazine used at the facility is sufficient to impede the breakdown of these metals.
The argument contains two distinct conceptual gaps. First, it introduces 'neurological disorders' in the conclusion without logically linking it to the 'heavy metals' mentioned in the premises. Second, it assumes that a chemical's behavior in a laboratory setting will translate exactly to the operational reality of the new facility. The correct choices explicitly bridge these two specific gaps; without them, the causal chain from utilizing Florazine to experiencing a rise in neurological disorders is broken.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument to separate premises from the conclusion.
Premises: Florazine neutralizes beneficial microbes that break down heavy metals. Conclusion: Using Florazine will lead to a rise in neurological disorders.
Identifying the structural components is required to spot conceptual gaps.
2
Identify rogue elements and conceptual leaps.
The concept of 'neurological disorders' appears only in the conclusion. There is also a leap from Florazine's effects 'in laboratory settings' to its effects at the actual 'water treatment facility'.
Supporter assumptions are strictly necessary to connect new conclusion concepts back to the premises.
3
Evaluate the options using the Negation Test.
Negating the statement about heavy metals causing disorders destroys the conclusion. Negating the statement about Florazine concentrations at the facility being sufficient also destroys the conclusion.
The Negation Test confirms whether an assumption is strictly logically required.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions
Soru 51Soru →

Retail Executive: Our new digital advertising strategy, implemented at the beginning of last year, has been a resounding success in boosting our online sales. In the year before the strategy was implemented, online sales accounted for just 15 percent of our total revenue. Last year, however, online sales made up a full 35 percent of our total revenue. It is clear that the new strategy brought in significantly more online revenue than we generated previously.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the retail executive's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The argument assumes that a rise in the percentage of a whole guarantees a rise in the absolute amount of that part.

Cevap

The argument assumes that a rise in the percentage of a whole guarantees a rise in the absolute amount of that part.
The executive's argument concludes that the absolute amount of online revenue increased, basing this claim entirely on the premise that the percentage of total revenue derived from online sales increased. However, a percentage is a relative figure. If the company's total revenue dropped significantly from the previous year to last year, a 35 percent share of last year's total could easily represent less actual money than a 15 percent share of the previous year's total. The correct choice identifies this flawed leap from proportion to absolute quantity.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the executive's argument.
The conclusion is that the new strategy 'brought in significantly more online revenue than we generated previously' (a claim about an absolute amount of money).
Understanding the exact nature of the conclusion is the first step in evaluating whether the premises adequately support it.
2
Analyze the premises provided as evidence for the conclusion.
The premises state that the proportion of total revenue coming from online sales increased from 15 percent to 35 percent.
Identifying the premises allows us to pinpoint the gap between the evidence provided and the conclusion drawn.
3
Evaluate the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion to find the flaw.
The premises only provide relative data (percentages), while the conclusion makes a definitive claim about an absolute number. If the company's total overall revenue plummeted last year, 35 percent of that new, smaller total could be less absolute money than 15 percent of the previous year's much larger total.
Recognizing this mathematical gap reveals the argument's central vulnerability.

Anahtar Kavram

Percent vs. Number Flaw
Soru 52Soru →

Art historian: The newly discovered 16th-century painting *The Solitary Scholar* contains lapis lazuli, a blue pigment that was exorbitantly expensive at the time. Only artists backed by wealthy patrons could afford to use lapis lazuli extensively in their works. Given that historical records confirm the artist, Vincenzo, died in poverty and never secured a wealthy patron, *The Solitary Scholar* must have been a collaborative effort with an artist who could afford such materials.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the art historian's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: *The Solitary Scholar* does not feature merely a small, affordable quantity of lapis lazuli.

Cevap

The argument requires assuming that the painting does not feature merely a small, affordable quantity of lapis lazuli.
The argument relies on a subtle shift in language: the painting 'contains' the pigment, but the rule about needing a wealthy patron only applies to using the pigment 'extensively'. For the conclusion (that Vincenzo needed a collaborator to afford it) to hold true, the author must be assuming that the painting uses enough of the pigment to trigger that financial constraint. If it only used a tiny, affordable amount, Vincenzo wouldn't have needed a collaborator.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the premises and the conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: The painting contains lapis lazuli. Premise 2: Only artists with wealthy patrons could afford to use it extensively. Premise 3: Vincenzo had no wealthy patron. Conclusion: Vincenzo collaborated with someone who could afford the materials.
Deconstructing the argument structure is essential to finding logical gaps.
2
Identify the logical gap (term shift) between the premises.
The premises state the painting 'contains' lapis lazuli, but the financial constraint only applies to using it 'extensively'.
Necessary assumptions often bridge subtle wording shifts in the stimulus.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the suspected assumption.
Negate the credited response: 'The painting DOES feature merely a small, affordable quantity of lapis lazuli.'
The correct answer to a necessary assumption question must destroy the argument when logically negated.
4
Evaluate the effect of the negated statement on the conclusion.
If the quantity was small and affordable, Vincenzo could have purchased it himself without a wealthy patron or collaborator. The conclusion is refuted.
Because the negation destroys the conclusion, this statement is logically required by the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying a term shift between 'containing' an element and using it 'extensively', and bridging that gap to maintain the argument's logic.
Soru 53Soru →

Analyze the following four arguments. Pair each argument with the abstract description that most accurately identifies its reasoning error.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Nutritionist: A comprehensive survey of office workers shows that those who frequently consume artisan coffee have significantly higher productivity levels than those who do not. Clearly, the specific blend of nutrients in artisan coffee directly boosts cognitive output and workplace efficiency.
Philosopher: We must accept that human actions are dictated by the laws of nature. After all, everything in the universe is subject to the law of gravity, and it is a law that we cannot break. Therefore, people who break the law should not be held morally responsible for their actions.
Safety Inspector: To pass the annual safety certification, a manufacturing plant must have functional emergency exits and up-to-date fire extinguishers. The Riverdale factory recently installed brand new fire extinguishers and ensured all emergency exits are fully functional. Consequently, the Riverdale factory will definitely pass its annual safety certification.
Traffic Commissioner: Our new highway interchange has been criticized as being exceptionally dangerous. However, last year only 4 percent of all traffic accidents in the county occurred at this new interchange, while a staggering 18 percent of all accidents occurred at the downtown roundabout. Therefore, it is definitively safer to drive through the new interchange than the downtown roundabout.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Nutritionist argument commits a Correlation vs. Causation flaw; the Philosopher argument commits an Equivocation flaw; the Safety Inspector argument commits a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw; and the Traffic Commissioner argument commits a Percentages vs. Numbers flaw.
Each argument contains a specific, classic logical fallacy that perfectly matches one of the abstract descriptions provided. Analyzing the gap between the premises and the conclusion in each stimulus reveals the exact nature of the flaw.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Nutritionist's argument.
Identified that it jumps from a survey finding (an association) to a claim about 'directly boosts' (causation).
To pinpoint the logical leap between the premises and the conclusion.
2
Analyze the Philosopher's argument.
Identified a shift in the usage of the word 'law' from scientific principles (gravity) to societal rules.
To recognize the equivocation flaw occurring between the evidence and the final claim.
3
Analyze the Safety Inspector's argument.
Identified that having exits and extinguishers is a 'must' (necessary) but the conclusion treats it as 'definitely pass' (sufficient).
To detect the confusion between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions.
4
Analyze the Traffic Commissioner's argument.
Identified the assumption that a lower percentage of total accidents means the location is safer, without considering the traffic volume.
To spot the flawed application of percentage data to draw conclusions about absolute risk.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Classic Logical Flaws
Soru 54Soru →

Consider the four policy-related arguments presented below. Which universal principle must be assumed to definitively justify the conclusion of each respective argument?

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The proposed municipal water project would eradicate the frequent shortages experienced in the eastern district. However, implementing the project requires seizing private farmland through eminent domain. Thus, the city must not proceed with the water project.
Governor Lin's tax reform bill will demonstrably increase the state's total economic output over the next decade. Yet, because the bill disproportionately increases the tax burden on the lowest-income residents, the legislature should vote against it.
The pharmaceutical company's new medication effectively cures a rare, debilitating disease. Unfortunately, producing the medication generates highly toxic chemical byproducts that cannot be safely stored. Therefore, regulatory agencies should prohibit the manufacturing of this medication.
The university's planned athletic complex would generate millions in revenue and significantly boost school spirit. However, the construction would require reallocating funds currently designated for academic scholarships. Consequently, the university administrators must cancel the athletic complex.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The municipal water project is justified by the principle against property confiscation; the tax reform bill is justified by the principle against disadvantaging the poorest citizens; the medication manufacturing is justified by the principle against generating uncontainable hazardous waste; and the athletic complex is justified by the principle against diverting financial aid.
Each correctly paired principle functions as a conditional mechanism. It takes the specific negative outcome cited in the argument's premise as its sufficient condition, and it yields the argument's rejection of the proposal as its necessary condition, explicitly overriding any competing benefits.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct each argument to identify its premises, its concession, and its ultimate conclusion.
Each scenario features a proposed action with a conceded benefit (e.g., curing a disease, generating revenue) and a specific negative premise (e.g., toxic waste, diverting scholarships), concluding definitively that the action must be stopped.
Isolating the logical gap between the specific negative premise and the prohibitive conclusion is required to identify the correct sufficient assumption.
2
Formulate the missing conditional rule that forces the conclusion to be true.
The necessary bridge for each argument takes the form: 'If [specific negative premise], then [action must be stopped], regardless of [conceded benefit].'
A 'justify' principle must act as a sufficient condition that completely bridges the gap from the premises to the conclusion without leaving room for exceptions.
3
Map the formulated conditional rules to the provided universal principles.
The negative conditions (confiscating property, disadvantaging the poorest, uncontainable waste, diverting financial aid) directly trigger the prohibitive conclusions mandated in the respective principles.
Matching requires strict alignment between the normative triggers in the principle and the factual conditions presented in the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

In 'Principle - Justify' questions, the correct principle acts as a strict conditional rule (If P, then Q). The premises of the argument must satisfy the sufficient condition (P), thereby guaranteeing the argument's conclusion as the necessary condition (Q).
Soru 55Soru →

Management Consultant: Any organization that achieves long-term market dominance must have continuously invested in research and development. VestraTech Industries has recently committed a substantial portion of its annual budget to continuous research and development. We can conclude, therefore, that VestraTech Industries is guaranteed to achieve long-term market dominance.

Which of the following best describes the flaw in the management consultant's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: treats a condition that is required for bringing about a certain outcome as though it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome

Cevap

The argument treats a condition that is required for bringing about a certain outcome as though it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
The correct answer accurately identifies the structural flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The first premise establishes that continuous R&D is a requirement (a necessary condition) for long-term market dominance. The argument then incorrectly assumes that because VestraTech satisfied this requirement, it is absolutely guaranteed to achieve market dominance, treating the requirement as if it were a sufficient guarantee.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first premise to identify the conditional relationship.
Market Dominance -> Continuous R&D. (R&D is a necessary condition for dominance).
Understanding the precise logical constraints set by the word 'must' is crucial for evaluating the argument.
2
Analyze the second premise and how it applies to VestraTech.
VestraTech has continuous R&D. (The necessary condition has been met).
This establishes the factual basis from which the author attempts to draw an inference.
3
Examine the conclusion drawn from these premises.
VestraTech -> Market Dominance. (Therefore, VestraTech will achieve dominance).
To find the flaw, we must see how the author moved from the premises to the final claim.
4
Compare the logical structure to known logical fallacies.
The author committed an illegal reversal, confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one.
Fulfilling a requirement (R&D) does not automatically guarantee success (Dominance), as there may be other unstated requirements.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 56Soru →

Financial Regulator: The creators of the 'Equi-Loan' software claim their algorithm produces unbiased loan decisions. To prove this, they demonstrated that the system is trained exclusively on objective data: the strictly factual, verifiable historical records of bank loan approvals and denials over the past fifty years. Since the software's outputs are mathematically derived solely from this objective data, the regulator concludes that the algorithm's loan decisions are indeed objective and therefore unbiased.

The regulator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: relies on a shift in the meaning of the word 'objective' from the premises to the conclusion

Cevap

The correct answer identifies that the argument relies on a shift in the meaning of the word 'objective' from the premises to the conclusion.
The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. In the premise, 'objective data' is explicitly defined as 'strictly factual, verifiable historical records'—meaning the records accurately document what happened. In the conclusion, the regulator claims the decisions are 'objective and therefore unbiased'—meaning free from prejudice. Factually recording historical decisions does not mean those historical decisions were fair. An algorithm trained on factually accurate records of heavily biased human decisions will simply replicate that bias. Thus, the data can be 'objective' (factual) without producing 'objective' (unbiased) results.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's premises.
The core premise is that the software is trained on 'objective data', which the author explicitly defines as 'strictly factual, verifiable historical records'.
Understanding the precise definitions established in the premises is crucial for spotting logical gaps.
2
Analyze the argument's conclusion.
The conclusion claims that because the data is objective, the software's decisions are 'objective and therefore unbiased'.
Isolating the conclusion allows for direct comparison with the supporting premises.
3
Identify the logical disconnect between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that factually accurate records of past decisions (premise) guarantee that those decisions were fair or unbiased (conclusion). However, accurately recording a biased historical decision just results in an accurate record of bias.
This reveals the underlying vulnerability of the reasoning.
4
Classify the specific flaw committed.
The author uses the term 'objective' to mean 'verifiable/factual' when discussing the data, but uses the same word to mean 'unbiased' when describing the final decisions. This is the fallacy of equivocation.
Matching the logical disconnect to standard LSAT flaw categories allows for selecting the correct abstract description in the choices.

Anahtar Kavram

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)
Soru 57Soru →

Urban Sociologist: To foster a stronger sense of community, the city council is converting several downtown streets into pedestrian-only zones. Currently, residents rarely interact with one another in these areas because heavy vehicle traffic makes the streets excessively noisy and dangerous. By eliminating cars from these specific streets, the city will ensure that residents socialize more frequently, thereby successfully strengthening community bonds.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the urban sociologist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Residents of the city would be inclined to interact with one another on the downtown streets if those areas were free from the noise and danger of vehicle traffic.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that residents would be inclined to interact with one another on the downtown streets if those areas were free from the noise and danger of vehicle traffic.
For the argument's conclusion to logically hold, it must be true that the removal of traffic will actually result in residents socializing. If residents were completely unwilling to interact with one another even in a quiet, safe environment, then converting the streets into pedestrian zones would fail to ensure more frequent socialization. Thus, the argument strictly requires this assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that eliminating cars from the downtown streets will ensure that residents socialize more frequently and strengthen community bonds.
Isolating the conclusion is essential to determine what the argument is trying to prove.
2
Identify the supporting premises.
The premise is that heavy vehicle traffic currently makes the streets noisy and dangerous, which prevents residents from interacting.
Understanding the evidence reveals the logical foundation of the author's claim.
3
Locate the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The author assumes that removing the barrier of noise and danger is sufficient to cause residents to socialize, ignoring whether they actually have the desire to interact in those spaces once the barrier is gone.
A necessary assumption must bridge the unstated gap between what is explicitly stated and what is concluded.
4
Apply the Negation Test to evaluate the options.
Negating the correct option yields: 'Residents would NOT be inclined to interact even if the streets were free from traffic.' This directly destroys the conclusion that removing cars will ensure more socialization.
The Negation Test definitively proves whether a statement is strictly required by the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions via the Negation Technique
Soru 58Soru →

We can conclude that the majority of modernist civic centers designed in the mid-twentieth century suffer from severe thermal regulation issues. After all, most of these civic centers incorporate extensive raw concrete facades, and it is well documented that most structures incorporating extensive raw concrete facades suffer from such thermal issues.

Which of the following arguments contains a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to the one exhibited in the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Most hybrid sedans currently on the market are equipped with regenerative braking systems. Therefore, most hybrid sedans require specialized mechanic certification to service, since the majority of vehicles equipped with regenerative braking systems require such certification.

Cevap

The argument about hybrid sedans and regenerative braking systems.
The correct answer accurately replicates the 'chaining mosts' quantifier flaw seen in the stimulus. In the stimulus, the argument assumes that because most civic centers (A) have concrete facades (B), and most structures with concrete facades (B) have thermal issues (C), then most civic centers (A) must have thermal issues (C). The correct answer uses the exact same flawed reasoning: Most hybrid sedans (A) have regenerative braking (B), and most vehicles with regenerative braking (B) need certification (C), therefore most hybrid sedans (A) need certification (C). The order of the sentences is slightly varied, but the logical dependencies are identical.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Abstract the logical structure of the stimulus.
Conclusion: Most A are C. Premise 1: Most A are B. Premise 2: Most B are C.
Identifying the formal structure allows for an objective comparison of reasoning patterns, independent of the subject matter.
2
Identify the specific logical flaw in the abstracted structure.
The flaw is Quantifier Overreach. Just because Most A are B, and Most B are C, it does not guarantee that the A's and C's overlap. (e.g., Most dogs are pets. Most pets are cats. Therefore, most dogs are cats. - Invalid).
Understanding why the stimulus is flawed ensures the correct answer choice is selected for the right structural reason.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find the exact structural match.
The correct option abstract is: Premise 1: Most A are B. Conclusion: Most A are C. Premise 2: Most B are C. Despite a different ordering of premises and conclusion, the logical linkage and the flaw perfectly match the stimulus.
Parallel reasoning questions often vary the presentation order to test true structural understanding rather than superficial reading.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Flaw - Quantifier Overreach
Soru 59Soru →

Zoologist: In colonies of the red-crested macaque, individuals that regularly share food with non-kin spend significantly less time engaging in social grooming. Social grooming is the primary behavior through which macaques establish and maintain their position in the colony's hierarchy. Therefore, by regularly sharing food with non-kin, these macaques are actively diminishing their social standing.

Which of the following statements function as a valid supporter assumption required to bridge the logical gap in the zoologist's argument? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any red-crested macaque that spends significantly less time on the primary behavior for maintaining its hierarchical position will experience a decrease in its social standing.; If a red-crested macaque does not experience a diminishment in its social standing, then it has not significantly reduced the amount of time it spends on social grooming.

Cevap

The correct statements are the one that directly connects spending less time on hierarchy maintenance to decreased social standing, and its contrapositive which states that a macaque not experiencing diminished standing has not reduced its grooming time.
The zoologist's argument contains a clear gap. The premises establish that food-sharing macaques groom less, and that grooming is the primary way to maintain hierarchy. However, the conclusion abruptly jumps to claiming they are 'actively diminishing their social standing.' To make this conclusion logical, we must assume that failing to engage in the primary hierarchy-maintaining behavior actually results in diminished standing. One correct statement provides this exact conditional link. The other correct statement provides the exact same logical link, just phrased as a contrapositive (if standing is not diminished, grooming was not reduced). Both properly bridge the gap.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises of the argument.
Premise 1: Sharing food = Less time grooming. Premise 2: Grooming = Primary behavior to maintain hierarchy.
Understanding the established facts is the first step in structural argument analysis.
2
Identify the main conclusion.
Conclusion: Sharing food = Diminishing social standing.
Isolating the conclusion highlights the final claim the author is trying to prove.
3
Locate the logical gap (new concept in the conclusion).
The concept of 'diminishing social standing' appears in the conclusion but is never directly linked to 'less time grooming' in the premises.
A supporter assumption must explicitly connect the 'rogue' element in the conclusion to the established premise framework.
4
Formulate the required bridge and evaluate the options.
The required bridge is 'Less time grooming -> Diminishing social standing'. Two options provide this relationship: one directly, and one as a logically equivalent contrapositive.
Supporter assumptions can appear in standard conditional form or as their contrapositive; both successfully validate the inference.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging a logical gap requires identifying a new element in the conclusion and strictly linking it to the premise terminology, either directly or via its contrapositive.
Soru 60Soru →

For each scenario provided on the left, identify the abstract description on the right that most precisely isolates the apparent logical discrepancy presented in the stimulus. One abstract description will remain unmatched.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Despite a multi-year drought sharply reducing the total biomass of native flora in the Silverbasin region, the population of the native foraging beetle, which relies exclusively on this flora for survival, reached an unprecedented high.
Following the municipality's decision to double the deployment frequency of public transit buses—an initiative explicitly intended to minimize passenger wait times—the average duration a commuter spent waiting at a bus stop increased.
A national government eliminated all import tariffs on technological components, a move that substantially lowered production costs for domestic electronics manufacturers. Immediately thereafter, the average retail price of domestically produced electronics surged.
In a controlled behavioral study, participants subjected to a strict financial penalty for every error made during a complex data-entry task committed a higher absolute number of errors than participants who completed the identical task without any punitive conditions.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match the ecology scenario with the population expansion/resource depletion description, the transit scenario with the service availability/user delay description, the economics scenario with the supply expenses/consumer pricing description, and the behavioral psychology scenario with the negative reinforcement/behavioral failures description.
Each correct abstract description precisely mirrors the two conflicting factual premises established in its corresponding scenario. The correct pairings do not introduce unwarranted assumptions, attempt to provide a resolution to the paradox, or mix variables between the different stimuli.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first scenario to isolate the two conflicting facts.
The conflict is between a drought reducing the sole food source (flora biomass) and the dependent species (beetle) population simultaneously increasing.
Identifying the exact tension prevents falling for abstract descriptions that introduce outside variables.
2
Analyze the second scenario to isolate the two conflicting facts.
The conflict is between doubling bus frequency to minimize wait times and actual wait times increasing.
This establishes the core structural paradox: an action intended to solve a delay problem paradoxically worsened the delay.
3
Analyze the third scenario to isolate the two conflicting facts.
The conflict is between eliminating tariffs to lower production costs and the retail prices of the produced goods surging.
This confirms the tension is strictly financial, relating supply-side cost reductions to demand-side price increases.
4
Analyze the fourth scenario to isolate the two conflicting facts.
The conflict is between applying a financial penalty to prevent data-entry errors and the penalized group committing more errors.
This isolates the discrepancy as a backfiring punitive measure, differentiating it from scenarios involving the removal of constraints.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the Apparent Discrepancy
ÖncekiSayfa 3 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin