Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 1121Soru →

According to the newly revised deep-sea exploration safety protocols, a submersible is certified for trench operations only if its hull is constructed using a titanium-carbon matrix. Unless a vessel has an upgraded pressure-compensation system, it cannot be constructed using a titanium-carbon matrix. An upgraded pressure-compensation system is never approved for installation without the vessel passing an acoustic integrity scan. Furthermore, passing the acoustic integrity scan requires the installation of redundant hydrostatic sensors.

Based on the safety protocols described above, which of the following must be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any submersible that does not have redundant hydrostatic sensors installed is not certified for trench operations.

Cevap

Any submersible that does not have redundant hydrostatic sensors installed is not certified for trench operations.
The correct answer accurately reflects the contrapositive of the entire conditional chain. The stimulus establishes that certification requires a titanium hull (C -> T), which requires an upgraded system (T -> U), which requires an acoustic scan (U -> S), which in turn requires redundant sensors (S -> R). By linking these, we get: Certification -> Redundant sensors (C -> R). The contrapositive of this relationship is: No redundant sensors -> No certification (~R -> ~C).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify and translate the first conditional relationship.
Certified for trench operations (C) -> Titanium-carbon matrix hull (T).
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition.
2
Translate the second and third conditional relationships.
Titanium-carbon matrix hull (T) -> Upgraded pressure-compensation system (U). Upgraded system (U) -> Acoustic integrity scan (S).
The phrase 'unless' means 'if not', creating the conditional: If not U, then not T (which translates to T -> U). The phrase 'never... without' also creates a necessary condition: U -> S.
3
Translate the final conditional relationship and combine all statements into a chain.
Scan (S) -> Redundant sensors (R). The full chain is: C -> T -> U -> S -> R.
The word 'requires' indicates a necessary condition. Connecting the shared terms creates the full logical progression.
4
Form the contrapositive of the entire chain to find the correct valid deduction.
If not R -> not S -> not U -> not T -> not C. Therefore, lacking redundant sensors means the submersible is not certified.
Correct answers in conditional chain questions often rely on the contrapositive of the relationship between the first and last terms.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements and Forming Deductive Chains
Soru 1122Soru →

Read the following argument carefully. Match each excerpt from the argument (on the left) with the statement that most accurately describes its structural role in the argument (on the right).

"Proponents of 'rewilding' argue that reintroducing apex predators to disturbed ecosystems will naturally restore ecological balance. They base this on the assumption that these ecosystems still possess the underlying carrying capacity to support such predators. This assumption, however, is demonstrably false. Decades of intensive agriculture have fundamentally altered soil microbiomes, drastically reducing the primary productivity that forms the base of the food web. Because of this reduction, herbivore populations cannot recover to historical levels. It follows that reintroduced apex predators would quickly exhaust their prey base and face starvation. Consequently, rewilding efforts that focus on apex predators without first restoring soil health are destined to fail. The true path to ecological restoration must therefore begin at the microscopic level."

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

reintroducing apex predators to disturbed ecosystems will naturally restore ecological balance
these ecosystems still possess the underlying carrying capacity to support such predators
herbivore populations cannot recover to historical levels
rewilding efforts that focus on apex predators without first restoring soil health are destined to fail
The true path to ecological restoration must therefore begin at the microscopic level

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The excerpts accurately map to their structural roles by tracing the argument from the opposing view, through the author's premises and subsidiary conclusions, to the final prescriptive main conclusion.
The argument follows a classic structure: it introduces an opposing view, attacks the assumption underlying that view with factual evidence, builds a chain of intermediate conclusions to show why the opposing view's policy will fail, and concludes with a prescriptive claim about what should be done instead. Each excerpt fits perfectly into this structural analysis.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the opposing view and its basis.
The argument starts by outlining the proponents' conclusion ('reintroducing apex predators... will naturally restore') and the assumption they base it on ('ecosystems still possess... carrying capacity').
Understanding the context of the author's critique requires first identifying what specific claims the author is responding to.
2
Trace the author's counter-argument chain from the initial premise.
The author introduces a factual premise about altered microbiomes, which directly leads to the intermediate conclusion about herbivore populations ('herbivore populations cannot recover...').
This establishes the causal chain of evidence that refutes the proponents' assumption about carrying capacity.
3
Identify the major subsidiary conclusion regarding the proposed policy.
The chain of evidence leads to the conclusion that the proponents' specific policy of focusing on apex predators will fail ('rewilding efforts... are destined to fail').
This evaluates the outcome of the opposed policy based on the author's evidence, setting up the final takeaway.
4
Locate the final, overarching point the author is trying to prove.
The argument culminates in a prescriptive claim about how restoration should actually be handled ('The true path... must therefore begin at the microscopic level').
The main conclusion must be the statement that is supported by the rest of the argument but does not support any further claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions and Diagramming Argument Structure
Soru 1123Soru →

In the context of international finance regulations, no corporate entity can successfully complete a hostile takeover without securing majority shareholder approval. Furthermore, completing such a takeover is possible only if the entity avoids antitrust litigation. Finally, avoiding antitrust litigation requires that the entity neither holds a monopoly in its primary market nor attempts to merge with its largest competitor.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any corporate entity that attempts to merge with its largest competitor cannot successfully complete a hostile takeover.

Cevap

The statement that any entity attempting to merge with its largest competitor cannot successfully complete a hostile takeover must be true.
This option correctly applies the contrapositive of the conditional chain established in the stimulus. The stimulus establishes that completing a takeover requires avoiding antitrust litigation (Takeover -> Avoid Litigation), and avoiding litigation requires NOT attempting to merge with the largest competitor (Avoid Litigation -> NOT Merge Largest). Chaining these together gives: Takeover -> NOT Merge Largest. The contrapositive is: Merge Largest -> NOT Takeover. This precisely matches the correct option.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first two sentences into formal conditional logic.
Takeover -> Majority Approval AND Takeover -> Avoid Litigation.
The phrases 'no... without' and 'only if' introduce necessary conditions for the sufficient condition of successfully completing a hostile takeover.
2
Translate the final sentence into formal conditional logic.
Avoid Litigation -> NOT Monopoly AND NOT Merge Largest.
The word 'requires' introduces necessary conditions, and 'neither... nor' dictates that both conditions must be negated.
3
Chain the conditional statements together.
Takeover -> Avoid Litigation -> NOT Monopoly AND NOT Merge Largest.
Because 'Avoid Litigation' is necessary for 'Takeover' and sufficient for 'NOT Merge Largest', they form an unbroken deductive chain.
4
Form the contrapositive of the chained relationship.
Monopoly OR Merge Largest -> NOT Takeover.
Negating the necessary conditions (and flipping AND to OR) yields a sufficient condition that guarantees the takeover will not be completed.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements and Contrapositives
Soru 1124Soru →

Mayor: The proposed highway expansion is necessary to reduce traffic congestion, as it will divert commercial trucks away from city streets.
City Planner: While diverting commercial trucks is important, the highway expansion will actually increase overall traffic congestion by encouraging more commuters to drive instead of using public transit.

Statement: The Mayor and the City Planner disagree over whether the proposed highway expansion will reduce traffic congestion.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The text demonstrates a direct logical conflict: the Mayor asserts the expansion will reduce congestion, and the City Planner asserts it will increase congestion. This makes the statement an accurate description of their disagreement.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first speaker's argument.
The Mayor concludes that the highway expansion will reduce traffic congestion.
Identifying the main conclusion of the first speaker establishes their primary stance.
2
Analyze the second speaker's response.
The City Planner states that the highway expansion will increase overall traffic congestion.
Identifying the second speaker's stance allows for comparison against the first speaker's conclusion.
3
Determine the point of overlap and conflict.
One asserts a reduction in congestion; the other asserts an increase. Therefore, they disagree on whether the expansion will reduce traffic congestion.
A valid point at issue requires one speaker to affirm a proposition while the other rejects it.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the precise point of disagreement in a two-speaker dialogue.
Soru 1125Soru →

Read the following argument carefully. Then, match each excerpt from the stimulus to the statement that most accurately describes its structural role in the argument.

"Many agricultural historians argue that the adoption of the heavy plow in medieval Europe directly caused a rapid increase in population by drastically improving crop yields. Detailed manorial records, however, indicate that population growth in several key regions actually preceded the widespread introduction of the heavy plow by nearly a century. Consequently, the heavy plow was a result, rather than the primary cause, of medieval demographic shifts. After all, expanding populations require increased food production to sustain larger workforces. This mounting pressure to produce more food clearly forced medieval communities to innovate and adopt more efficient agricultural technologies."

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

"...the adoption of the heavy plow in medieval Europe directly caused a rapid increase in population..."
"...population growth in several key regions actually preceded the widespread introduction of the heavy plow..."
"...the heavy plow was a result, rather than the primary cause, of medieval demographic shifts."
"...This mounting pressure to produce more food clearly forced medieval communities to innovate and adopt more efficient agricultural technologies."

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The excerpt about historians arguing the plow caused population increase matches the viewpoint being rejected. The excerpt regarding manorial records matches the premise providing empirical evidence. The excerpt stating the plow was a result rather than a cause matches the main conclusion. The excerpt regarding mounting pressure forcing communities to innovate matches the intermediate conclusion.
Each excerpt perfectly maps to a specific structural role. The argument is built by introducing an opposing view, providing a factual premise to contradict it, stating the main conclusion, and then providing a subsidiary argument (a general premise leading to an intermediate conclusion) to explain why the main conclusion makes sense.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first sentence of the stimulus.
Identifies the claim that the plow caused a population increase as the opposing viewpoint.
The phrase 'Many agricultural historians argue...' introduces a position that the author immediately counters with 'however, this causal narrative is fundamentally flawed,' establishing it as the rejected view.
2
Examine the second sentence containing the 'Detailed manorial records'.
Identifies this sentence as a premise providing historical evidence.
It presents factual, timeline-based data used to support the author's impending conclusion.
3
Evaluate the third sentence beginning with 'Consequently'.
Identifies this sentence as the main conclusion.
The word 'Consequently' signals a conclusion, and this statement (that the plow was a result, not a cause) represents the author's primary argument against the historians' narrative.
4
Analyze the final two sentences together.
Identifies the final sentence as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
The final sentence is supported by the preceding premise ('expanding populations require increased food'). In turn, it provides the causal mechanism (incentive to innovate) that explains the timeline, thereby supporting the main conclusion in the third sentence.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions vs. Subsidiary Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1126Soru →

City Council Member: Some residents argue that our town should ban all commercial development in the historic district on the grounds that such development inherently alters the character of the neighborhood. But if we accept the premise that any alteration of character is sufficient justification for a prohibition, we would also be forced to ban the restoration of dilapidated residential properties, since those renovations also drastically alter the neighborhood's current character. Thus, the residents' rationale is unsound.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used by the city council member?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: attempting to undermine a position by demonstrating that the principle underlying it would lead to an unacceptable consequence

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument attempts to undermine a position by demonstrating that the principle underlying it would lead to an unacceptable consequence.
The correct answer accurately captures the argumentative technique known as reductio ad absurdum. The council member abstracts the general rule from the residents' argument ('any alteration of character is sufficient justification for a prohibition') and applies it to a universally accepted good ('restoration of dilapidated residential properties') to prove that the rule cannot be sound.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the council member's argument.
The council member summarizes the residents' position and their supporting premise (commercial development alters character).
To accurately understand the target of the council member's critique.
2
Identify the core logical move made by the council member.
The member extracts the implicit principle behind the residents' argument (altering character justifies a ban) and applies it to a different scenario (restoring dilapidated homes).
To isolate the specific method of reasoning being employed.
3
Determine the purpose of applying the principle to a new scenario.
The council member shows that applying the principle strictly would result in banning positive renovations, which is an absurd or unacceptable outcome, thereby invalidating the principle.
To abstract the rhetorical strategy into formal terms.
4
Evaluate the answer choices against this abstract description.
The correct option must describe the strategy of taking an opponent's principle and showing it yields an unacceptable consequence elsewhere.
To select the option that perfectly matches the structural analysis of the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 1127Soru →

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

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

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

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

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

Adım Adım Çözüm

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

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining Conditional Statements
Soru 1128Soru →

A pharmaceutical regulatory agency uses the following propositional variables to evaluate clinical trials:

MM: Marketing is approved
TT: Toxicity is low
RR: Regulatory audit is passed
CC: Control group improves

Match each English policy statement with its logically equivalent formal diagram. Note that the correct match may represent either the direct translation or its valid contrapositive.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Marketing is approved only if toxicity is low.
Toxicity is low if the regulatory audit is passed.
The control group will not improve unless toxicity is low.
Passing the regulatory audit requires that the control group improves.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Statement 1 matches ∼T→∼M\sim T \rightarrow \sim M; Statement 2 matches ∼T→∼R\sim T \rightarrow \sim R; Statement 3 matches C→TC \rightarrow T; Statement 4 matches ∼C→∼R\sim C \rightarrow \sim R.
Each English statement translates to a specific formal logic relationship based on its indicator words. Finding the correct match requires establishing the base conditional statement and, if the direct translation is not an option, taking its valid contrapositive (reversing and negating both terms).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze 'Marketing is approved only if toxicity is low.'
Translates to M→TM \rightarrow T. Its contrapositive is ∼T→∼M\sim T \rightarrow \sim M.
The phrase 'only if' always modifies the necessary condition, which belongs on the right side of the arrow.
2
Analyze 'Toxicity is low if the regulatory audit is passed.'
Translates to R→TR \rightarrow T. Its contrapositive is ∼T→∼R\sim T \rightarrow \sim R.
When 'if' is used alone in the middle of a sentence, it modifies the sufficient condition, which belongs on the left side of the arrow.
3
Analyze 'The control group will not improve unless toxicity is low.'
Translates to ∼T→∼C\sim T \rightarrow \sim C. Its contrapositive is C→TC \rightarrow T.
The term 'unless' means 'if not'. Applying this gives: If toxicity is not low (∼T\sim T), the control group will not improve (∼C\sim C).
4
Analyze 'Passing the regulatory audit requires that the control group improves.'
Translates to R→CR \rightarrow C. Its contrapositive is ∼C→∼R\sim C \rightarrow \sim R.
The word 'requires' indicates that the subsequent concept is mandatory, making it the necessary condition (right side of the arrow).

Anahtar Kavram

Translating conditional indicator words ('only if', 'if', 'unless', 'requires') into formal logic and deriving their contrapositives.
Soru 1129Soru →

Linguist: The theory that the proto-language of the Altaic family originated in nomadic pastoralist communities is challenged by the fact that the oldest reconstructed Altaic vocabulary lacks specialized terms for horse breeding. Defenders of the pastoralist theory attempt to explain away this absence by arguing that early Altaic speakers simply adopted the horse-breeding terminology of neighboring groups, which subsequently replaced their native terms in the linguistic record. However, this defense is inadequate. Recent computational phylogenetic studies, which bypass borrowed vocabulary by isolating deep ancestral root morphemes, confirm the complete absence of any pastoralist concepts in the foundational structure of the language.

Determine whether the following statement accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the argument:

The linguist counters the defenders' argument by demonstrating that the alternative explanation proposed by the defenders is logically incompatible with the original evidence cited against the pastoralist theory.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The abstract description of the reasoning is false because the linguist refutes the defenders by introducing new empirical data (computational phylogenetic studies of root morphemes) rather than pointing out a logical inconsistency between the defenders' theory and the original data (the lack of specialized terms in reconstructed vocabulary).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the linguist's original evidence against the hypothesis.
The oldest reconstructed vocabulary lacks specialized terms for horse breeding.
To establish the foundation of the initial argument against the pastoralist theory.
2
Analyze the defenders' counterargument.
The defenders propose an alternative causal explanation: native terms were replaced by adopted terminology from neighboring groups.
To determine what specific claim the linguist is responding to in the final rebuttal.
3
Identify the linguist's method of refuting the defenders.
The linguist cites novel computational phylogenetic studies isolating root morphemes to show no pastoralist concepts existed.
To accurately characterize the precise argumentative strategy used in the final sentence.
4
Evaluate the provided statement against the identified method of reasoning.
The statement claims the linguist showed logical incompatibility with the 'original evidence', but the linguist actually introduced completely 'new evidence' to invalidate the defenders' claim.
To determine the truth value of the abstract structural description.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing between refuting an argument via internal logical contradiction and refuting it through the introduction of novel, independent empirical evidence.
Soru 1130Soru →

If a frog species inhabits the upper canopy of the rainforest, it must have specialized toe pads. Any frog species that has specialized toe pads is capable of adhering to wet leaves. The blue-legged tree frog is a frog species that inhabits the upper canopy of the rainforest.

Which of the following must be true on the basis of the statements above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The blue-legged tree frog is capable of adhering to wet leaves.

Cevap

The blue-legged tree frog is capable of adhering to wet leaves.
The stimulus provides a direct chain of conditional reasoning: Canopy → Toe Pads → Adhere to Wet Leaves. Since we are explicitly told that the blue-legged tree frog is a canopy species, it triggers this entire chain, guaranteeing that it can adhere to wet leaves.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conditional relationships presented as facts in the stimulus.
Inhabits upper canopy → Has specialized toe pads. Has specialized toe pads → Capable of adhering to wet leaves.
Mapping the conditional logic is the most reliable way to find deductions that are mathematically certain.
2
Chain the conditional statements together using their shared term.
Inhabits upper canopy → Capable of adhering to wet leaves.
The transitive property of logic allows us to connect the first sufficient condition directly to the final necessary condition.
3
Apply the specific factual premise to the logical chain.
Because the blue-legged tree frog satisfies the sufficient condition (inhabits upper canopy), the necessary condition (capable of adhering to wet leaves) must apply to it.
This guarantees a 100% provable inference, which is required for 'Must Be True' questions.

Anahtar Kavram

Must Be True Questions
Soru 1131Soru →

Policy Analyst: The city's initiative to reduce household water consumption by subsidizing high-efficiency showerheads is unlikely to succeed. When people install high-efficiency fixtures, they often take longer showers because they feel less guilty about wasting water. This behavioral shift typically offsets any water savings gained from the improved technology.

Statement: The policy analyst's argument proceeds by arguing that a proposed measure will fail because it will induce a behavioral change that counteracts its intended effect.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is correct because it flawlessly translates the specific contents of the analyst's argument into abstract methodological terms. The author critiques a plan by predicting an unintended consequence (longer showers) that directly negates the plan's underlying purpose (saving water).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the specific claims made in the policy analyst's argument.
The argument identifies a policy goal (reduce water consumption), a proposed solution (subsidize efficient showerheads), and a mechanism for failure (people taking longer showers due to reduced guilt).
Understanding the concrete structural components of the stimulus is necessary before evaluating an abstract description of its reasoning.
2
Evaluate the abstract description provided in the statement against the argument's concrete structure.
The abstract concepts in the statement ('proposed measure', 'induce a behavioral change', 'counteracts its intended effect') perfectly map onto the stimulus ('subsidizing showerheads', 'take longer showers', 'offsets any water savings').
Method of reasoning questions require recognizing how abstract logical language accurately characterizes a specific, applied argument.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 1132Soru →

Consider the following premises regarding macroeconomic policy:

Any monetary policy framework that stabilizes inflation over a five-year period must rely on dynamic interest rate adjustments. Frameworks that rely on dynamic interest rate adjustments inherently fail to maintain the predictability of short-term lending rates. Furthermore, a monetary policy framework will not gain unanimous approval from the central banking committee unless it maintains the predictability of short-term lending rates.

Based on the information provided, it must be true that no monetary policy framework that stabilizes inflation over a five-year period will gain unanimous approval from the central banking committee.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is logically true. By chaining the premises together (Stabilizes Inflation → Dynamic Adjustments → Fails Predictability), we establish that stabilizing inflation leads to failing to maintain predictability. The 'unless' rule dictates that Unanimous Approval → Maintains Predictability, which contraposes to Fails Predictability → No Unanimous Approval. Linking the entire chain proves that any framework stabilizing inflation will definitively not gain unanimous approval.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first premise into a formal conditional statement.
Stabilizes Inflation (SI) → Dynamic Interest Rate Adjustments (DIRA)
The word 'Any' introduces a sufficient condition, and 'must rely' introduces a necessary condition.
2
Translate the second premise into a formal conditional statement.
DIRA → Fails to Maintain Predictability (~MP)
The statement indicates that relying on dynamic adjustments guarantees the failure to maintain predictability.
3
Translate the third premise into a formal conditional statement.
Unanimous Approval (UACB) → Maintains Predictability (MP)
The phrase 'not [A] unless [B]' translates logically to 'If [A], then [B]'. Here, gaining approval is the sufficient condition and maintaining predictability is the necessary condition.
4
Form the contrapositive of the third premise and chain all conditional statements.
Contrapositive: ~MP → ~UACB. Chain: SI → DIRA → ~MP → ~UACB
To connect the premises, the necessary condition of the second premise (~MP) must trigger the sufficient condition of the third premise. The contrapositive allows this connection.
5
Evaluate the final statement against the logical chain.
The final statement is valid and inherently True.
The logical chain simplifies to SI → ~UACB. The statement 'no monetary policy framework that stabilizes inflation... will gain unanimous approval' perfectly expresses this exact relationship.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional logic chaining and translating 'unless' statements.
Soru 1133Soru →

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

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

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

Adım Adım Çözüm

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

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the structural hierarchy and causal chain of a logical argument.
Soru 1134Soru →

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

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

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

Adım Adım Çözüm

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

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements and Contrapositives
Soru 1135Soru →

In the city's botanical garden, all luminescent plants require high humidity. Furthermore, some luminescent plants in the botanical garden bloom at night.

Which one of the following must be true based on the information above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Some plants in the botanical garden that bloom at night require high humidity.

Cevap

Some plants in the botanical garden that bloom at night require high humidity.
The correct answer must be true because if 'some' (at least one) luminescent plants bloom at night, and 'all' luminescent plants require high humidity, then those specific night-blooming luminescent plants must also require high humidity. Therefore, there is at least one plant (some) that both blooms at night and requires high humidity.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first premise.
All luminescent plants require high humidity (Luminescent -> High Humidity).
This establishes a universal requirement for a specific group of plants.
2
Analyze the second premise.
Some luminescent plants bloom at night (Luminescent-some-Night Blooming).
This establishes that at least one plant belongs to both the 'luminescent' category and the 'night blooming' category.
3
Combine the premises to find the overlap.
Since the plants that are both luminescent and night-blooming are luminescent, they must also require high humidity.
Applying the universal rule from step 1 to the specific subset identified in step 2 proves that at least some night-blooming plants require high humidity.

Anahtar Kavram

Quantifier Logic Overlaps (All + Some)
Soru 1136Soru →

Paleontologists have long debated the function of the hyper-enlarged auditory bullae found in the extinct mammalian predator *Megistotherium*. Because these structures superficially resemble those of modern desert foxes, which utilize them to dissipate excess body heat, many have hypothesized a primarily thermoregulatory function. However, the *Megistotherium* bullae exhibit exceptionally thick bony walls that would have completely insulated any circulating blood. Thus, the hypothesis that the bullae functioned as a heat dissipation mechanism is untenable. Given that the only other known evolutionary advantage of such massively enlarged structures is the enhanced detection of low-frequency vibrations generated by distant prey, we can confidently infer that *Megistotherium* developed these structures specifically as hunting adaptations.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that the hypothesis that the bullae functioned as a heat dissipation mechanism is untenable?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is deduced from anatomical characteristics and functions to eliminate a competing explanation, thereby supporting the argument's primary conclusion.

Cevap

The correct option states that it is an intermediate conclusion deduced from anatomical characteristics that eliminates a competing explanation to support the primary conclusion.
The target statement is supported by the anatomical premise that the auditory bullae exhibit thick bony walls, which makes it a conclusion. However, it is not the final point of the argument. Instead, it is used to structurally rule out the thermoregulation hypothesis, allowing the author to conclude that the structures must be hunting adaptations. Therefore, it functions perfectly as an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is the final sentence: '*Megistotherium* developed these structures specifically as hunting adaptations.'
Locating the main conclusion provides the necessary reference point for determining the structural hierarchy of all other statements in the passage.
2
Analyze the logical relationships surrounding the target statement.
The target statement (that the heat dissipation hypothesis is untenable) is explicitly supported by the preceding sentence regarding thick bony walls ('However... Thus...').
A statement that receives logical support from another claim must be categorized structurally as a conclusion.
3
Determine the target statement's relationship to the main conclusion.
The target statement works in tandem with the premise about the 'only other known evolutionary advantage' to prove the main conclusion.
A conclusion that is subsequently used to support a further conclusion is defined as an intermediate, or subsidiary, conclusion.
4
Evaluate the answer choices based on the established structural role.
The correct description accurately identifies the statement as an intermediate conclusion that eliminates a competing explanation to support the primary conclusion.
Only one option correctly captures both the derived nature of the statement and its specific functional role in advancing the author's ultimate argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 1137Soru →

Every medication approved for pediatric use by the central health board has undergone long-term safety trials. Furthermore, no experimental therapy currently in Phase 3 testing has been subsidized by the national government. Interestingly, some medications approved for pediatric use by the central health board are experimental therapies currently in Phase 3 testing.

If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some medications that have undergone long-term safety trials have not been subsidized by the national government.

Cevap

At least some medications that have undergone long-term safety trials have not been subsidized by the national government.
The correct answer properly chains the established relationships. We know there is an overlap between pediatric medications and Phase 3 experimental therapies. Because all pediatric medications undergo long-term safety trials, this overlapping group must also have undergone long-term safety trials. Furthermore, because no Phase 3 therapies are subsidized, this overlapping group cannot be subsidized. Therefore, there exists at least some group of medications (the overlapping group) that have undergone long-term safety trials but are not subsidized.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the formal logic and conditional statements in the stimulus.
Pediatric Approval (PA) → Long-Term Trials (LTT). Phase 3 (P3) → NOT Subsidized (~SUB). PA 'some' P3.
Mapping the premises clearly separates the established relationships from potential assumptions.
2
Combine the 'some' statement with the absolute conditional statements.
Since PA 'some' P3, and PA → LTT, we can deduce that LTT 'some' P3 (some medications with long-term trials are in Phase 3).
If an entity has characteristic A and characteristic B, and all A's are C's, then that entity must also be a C that has characteristic B.
3
Apply the remaining absolute conditional to the new deduction.
Since LTT 'some' P3, and all P3 → ~SUB, it must logically follow that LTT 'some' ~SUB.
Any entity that is both LTT and P3 is subject to the rule governing P3. Since nothing in P3 is subsidized, those specific LTT entities are not subsidized.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining intersecting quantifiers with conditional rules to deduce a 'some' statement.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1138Soru →

At the regional hospital, any nurse who is assigned to the intensive care unit (ICU) must have completed the specialized critical care certification. Furthermore, no nurse who has completed the specialized critical care certification is permitted to work shifts longer than 12 hours. It is known that some nurses working on the night shift are assigned to the intensive care unit.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Some nurses working on the night shift are not permitted to work shifts longer than 12 hours.

Cevap

Some nurses working on the night shift are not permitted to work shifts longer than 12 hours.
The correct answer properly combines the provided premises. Since any nurse in the ICU must be certified, and no certified nurse can work more than 12 hours, it logically follows that no ICU nurse can work more than 12 hours. Because we are told that some night shift nurses are in the ICU, these particular nurses are absolutely subject to the ICU rules. Therefore, it must be true that some night shift nurses are not permitted to work shifts longer than 12 hours.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the rules into formal logic.
1. ICU -> Certification. 2. Certification -> NOT >12 hours. 3. Night Shift SOME ICU.
Mapping the statements makes the logical chain and the quantities explicit.
2
Connect the conditional statements.
Since ICU requires Certification, and Certification prevents shifts longer than 12 hours, we can deduce: ICU -> NOT >12 hours.
The transitive property of conditional logic allows us to connect the sufficient condition of the first premise to the necessary condition of the second.
3
Combine the chained conditional with the existential quantifier.
We know at least some night shift nurses are in the ICU. Since ALL ICU nurses are prohibited from working >12 hours, those specific night shift nurses must also be prohibited from working >12 hours.
Applying a universal rule (all ICU nurses) to a specific subgroup (some night shift nurses) yields a valid deduction about that subgroup.

Anahtar Kavram

Formal Logic Chaining and Existential Quantifiers
Soru 1139Soru →

Rotating different types of pesticides is ultimately the most economically sound approach for long-term farm management. True, farmers prioritizing short-term savings often apply a single, highly effective pesticide year after year. However, this single-pesticide strategy inevitably leads to escalating chemical costs over time. Pests that survive an initial application pass on their resistant traits to their offspring, meaning that significantly higher and more expensive concentrations of the chemical are required in subsequent planting seasons.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: For long-term farm management, using a variety of pesticide types makes the most financial sense.

Cevap

For long-term farm management, using a variety of pesticide types makes the most financial sense.
The correct answer perfectly captures the meaning of the argument's opening sentence. In this stimulus, the author leads with their main conclusion: that rotating pesticides is the most economically sound long-term approach. The rest of the passage is dedicated to proving this claim by explaining why the alternative (using a single pesticide) is financially detrimental in the long run. Since the first sentence is the ultimate point the author is trying to prove, it represents the main conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to break down the argument into its component parts: premises, intermediate conclusions, background information, and the main conclusion.
Identified the first sentence as a broad claim, the second as background/concession, the third as a resulting problem (escalating costs), and the fourth as the mechanism causing the problem (resistance).
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to understand the logical relationships between the statements.
2
Determine the hierarchical relationship between the claims by asking which statements support others and which statement receives all the support but supports nothing else.
The final sentence supports the third sentence. The third sentence supports the first sentence. The first sentence supports nothing else.
The main conclusion of an argument is the ultimate point being made; it is the structural endpoint of the reasoning chain.
3
Formulate a paraphrase of the identified main conclusion and match it to the answer choices.
The main conclusion is 'Rotating different types of pesticides is ultimately the most economically sound approach for long-term farm management', which directly matches the option stating that using a variety of pesticide types makes the most financial sense.
Correct answers in main conclusion questions are often synonymous paraphrases of the exact statement found in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1140Soru →

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

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

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

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

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

Adım Adım Çözüm

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

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements

Alternatif Yöntem

Instead of diagramming all the rules in isolation first, you can use the 'chain-building' method: start explicitly with the trigger ('fast-track funding approval'), and scan the text specifically for that exact term or its logical negation to find the first link. Repeat this process for each new necessary condition you discover.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
ÖncekiSayfa 57 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin