Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 1181Soru →

Financial Advisor: Our city will soon replace its tiered residential property tax system with a single flat-rate residential property tax. Ten years ago, the neighboring municipality of Mapleton replaced its tiered commercial tax system with a flat commercial tax. Following that change, Mapleton saw a dramatic reduction in administrative costs and a surge in new commercial investments. Therefore, adopting a flat residential property tax in our city will similarly reduce administrative costs and spur new residential investments.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the financial advisor's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Unlike commercial tax complexity, which arises primarily from applying tiered rates to various revenue streams, residential property tax complexity stems entirely from assessing the base value of the properties themselves.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that residential property tax complexity stems entirely from assessing the base value of the properties themselves, unlike commercial tax complexity.
The correct answer directly attacks the analogy by pointing out a relevant difference between commercial taxes and residential taxes. If the administrative burden of residential taxes comes from assessing the value of the properties rather than calculating the rates, then switching to a flat rate will not solve the administrative burden. This severs the causal link implied by the comparison to Mapleton's commercial tax change.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the conclusion and the premises.
The conclusion is that a flat residential property tax will reduce costs and spur investment. The premise is that a flat commercial tax had this exact effect in Mapleton.
Understanding the core argument is the fundamental first step in evaluating logical validity.
2
Identify the primary method of reasoning used by the author.
The advisor uses an argument by analogy, comparing commercial taxes in Mapleton (the base) to residential taxes in the local city (the target).
Knowing the specific method of reasoning reveals the argument's inherent logical vulnerabilities.
3
Determine how to evaluate and weaken an argument by analogy.
An argument by analogy is most effectively weakened by pointing out a relevant difference (a disanalogy) between the two things being compared.
If the two situations differ in a critical way that affects the predicted outcome, the analogy logically fails.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find a statement that highlights a critical disanalogy.
The correct option demonstrates that the source of administrative costs in residential taxes (assessing property value) is fundamentally different from that of commercial taxes (tiered rates).
This directly undermines the predictive power of the analogy by severing the causal link.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Arguments by Analogy
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1182Soru →

According to international maritime records, any commercial vessel constructed after 2020 that is equipped with a dual-fuel engine is certified for zero-emission operations. Furthermore, no vessel is certified for zero-emission operations unless it utilizes a purely electric auxiliary power system. However, there are no commercial vessels built before 2025 that utilize purely electric auxiliary power systems.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following cannot be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A commercial vessel constructed in 2024 is equipped with a dual-fuel engine.

Cevap

The statement that a commercial vessel constructed in 2024 is equipped with a dual-fuel engine cannot be true, as it creates an impossible set of requirements.
Based on the rules provided, a commercial vessel constructed after 2020 with a dual-fuel engine absolutely must have a purely electric auxiliary power system. However, the final rule strictly forbids any commercial vessel built before 2025 from having this system. Therefore, any commercial vessel constructed in 2021, 2022, 2023, or 2024 is logically prohibited from having a dual-fuel engine.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first premise into conditional logic.
Commercial Vessel AND Constructed After 2020 AND Dual-Fuel Engine → Certified for Zero-Emission.
This establishes the sufficient condition that triggers the certification requirement.
2
Translate the second premise and link it to the first.
Certified for Zero-Emission → Purely Electric Auxiliary System. Therefore, Post-2020 Commercial Dual-Fuel → Purely Electric Auxiliary System.
The word 'unless' introduces a necessary condition, allowing us to form a deductive chain.
3
Analyze the third premise (the constraint).
Commercial Vessel AND Constructed Before 2025 → NOT (Purely Electric Auxiliary System).
This sets a hard boundary on when a commercial vessel can possess the electric system.
4
Evaluate the overlap between the deductive chain and the constraint.
A commercial vessel built between 2021 and 2024 with a dual-fuel engine MUST have an electric system (Step 2) but CANNOT have an electric system (Step 3).
Identifying the overlapping years (after 2020, but before 2025) reveals the logical impossibility that answers the 'Cannot Be True' question.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying a scenario that violates the necessary conclusion of a chained conditional statement combined with a categorical restriction.
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 1183Soru →

According to the neighborhood association's rules, any resident who wishes to use the community pool must pay an annual fee of 100.Therefore,sincetheSmithfamilyrecentlypaidthe100. Therefore, since the Smith family recently paid the 100 fee, they will definitely be allowed to use the community pool this summer.

Which of the following best describes the flaw in the reasoning above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

The argument flawed because it treats a condition that is required for a certain outcome as though it were enough to guarantee that outcome.
The argument explicitly states that paying the fee is something a resident 'must' do (a necessary condition) to use the pool. It then concludes that because the Smiths met this one requirement, they are guaranteed access. This is logically flawed because meeting a necessary condition does not mean all sufficient criteria have been met; there might be other rules the Smiths must follow to use the pool.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional premise.
The premise states: If you wish to use the pool, you must pay the fee. (Use Pool -> Pay Fee). Paying the fee is a necessary condition.
Identifying the established relationship between the conditions is required to evaluate the logic.
2
Analyze the conclusion.
The conclusion states: The Smiths paid the fee, so they will use the pool. (Pay Fee -> Use Pool).
Understanding the author's final claim allows us to compare it against the provided evidence.
3
Compare the premise and conclusion to identify the logical gap.
The author takes the necessary condition (paying the fee) and wrongly treats it as a sufficient condition (guaranteeing pool use).
This comparison reveals the classic 'illegal reversal' flaw in conditional reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws (Illegal Reversal)
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 1184Soru →

Consider the following stimulus:

Last year, the city of Oakhaven implemented a new recycling program that accepts a wider variety of plastics than the previous program. Since the implementation of this new program, the total volume of trash sent to Oakhaven's landfill has decreased by 15%, even though the city's population has remained constant and overall consumption patterns have not changed.

Statement: Based on the information provided, it is most strongly supported that Oakhaven's new recycling program is at least partially responsible for the decrease in the volume of trash sent to the landfill.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

The statement is True. The stimulus strongly supports the inference that the recycling program contributed to the reduction in landfill trash.
The correct answer is True because the premises establish a clear temporal relationship between the new program and the decrease in trash, while explicitly eliminating key alternative causes (population and consumption changes). This synthesis strongly supports the causal inference.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the premises provided in the stimulus.
The city expanded its recycling program, landfill trash decreased by 15%, and both population and consumption patterns remained constant.
To establish the factual evidence that can be used to support an inference.
2
Evaluate the given statement against the premises.
The statement claims there is a likely causal link between the new recycling program and the decrease in trash.
To determine if the statement represents a strongly supported inference.
3
Assess the strength of the logical support.
Because alternative explanations (population change, consumption change) are explicitly ruled out, the introduction of the recycling program is the most logical and highly supported cause presented for the decrease.
To verify if the statement meets the threshold of being 'most strongly supported'.

Anahtar Kavram

Synthesizing premises to evaluate a strongly supported causal inference.
Soru 1185Soru →

The logically valid contrapositive of the statement 'A clinical trial is deemed ethically sound only if it obtains informed consent from all participants and minimizes potential risks' is 'If a clinical trial fails to obtain informed consent from all participants or fails to minimize potential risks, then it is not deemed ethically sound.'

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The original statement translates to 'If a trial is ethically sound, then it has informed consent AND minimized risks.' Forming the contrapositive requires reversing the conditions and negating them. According to De Morgan's laws, negating an 'AND' statement turns it into an 'OR' statement. Therefore, 'If it does not have informed consent OR does not minimize risks, then it is not ethically sound' is the exact logically valid contrapositive.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the sufficient and necessary conditions in the original statement.
Sufficient: A clinical trial is deemed ethically sound. Necessary: It obtains informed consent from all participants AND minimizes potential risks.
The phrase 'only if' introduces necessary conditions, while the subject of the sentence acts as the sufficient condition.
2
Formulate the logical relationship of the original statement.
Ethically sound -> (Informed consent AND Minimizes risks)
To apply formal logic rules accurately, we must translate the English text into conditional notation.
3
Apply the rule of contraposition and De Morgan's laws.
NOT (Informed consent AND Minimizes risks) -> NOT Ethically sound. This simplifies to: (NOT Informed consent OR NOT Minimizes risks) -> NOT Ethically sound.
The contrapositive requires negating and reversing both sides. Negating an 'AND' statement requires changing it to an 'OR' statement.
4
Compare the resulting logical formulation to the proposed contrapositive in the stem.
The proposed contrapositive matches the derived logical formulation perfectly.
To determine if the statement is true, the proposed text must reflect the exact logical equivalent.

Anahtar Kavram

Forming Contrapositives with Compound Conditionals
Soru 1186Soru →

Consider the following statements:

Any researcher who directs a Phase III clinical trial must hold both a board certification in immunology and a minimum of ten years of clinical practice.
Unless a researcher has published a peer-reviewed virology study, they cannot obtain a board certification in immunology.
Most researchers with a minimum of ten years of clinical practice have never published a peer-reviewed virology study.
Dr. Aris is currently directing a Phase III clinical trial.

Based on these statements, the claim that 'Dr. Aris belongs to the majority of researchers with at least ten years of clinical practice who have never published a peer-reviewed virology study' cannot be true.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The provided claim explicitly contradicts the valid deductive chain derived from the premises, meaning it genuinely cannot be true.
The statement accurately identifies that the internal claim is logically impossible. Dr. Aris directing a trial guarantees he has a board certification, which in turn guarantees he has published a virology study. The claim that he belongs to the majority who have never published this study directly contradicts this proven fact.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional statements provided in the premises.
Directing Trial -> Board Certification AND 10+ Years Practice. Board Certification -> Published Virology Study.
Translating formal logic into a deductive chain is required to track necessary conditions.
2
Apply the conditional chain to the specific subject, Dr. Aris.
Because Dr. Aris is directing a trial, he must have 10+ years of practice AND a Board Certification. Consequently, he must have a Published Virology Study.
This establishes the undeniable facts about Dr. Aris.
3
Evaluate the quantitative statement regarding researchers with 10+ years of practice.
Most (the majority) do NOT have a published study. Therefore, those who DO have a published study make up the minority of this group.
This defines the demographic groups mentioned in the target claim.
4
Compare Dr. Aris's deduced characteristics against the target claim.
The claim places Dr. Aris in the majority (those who have NEVER published the study). The deduction proves Dr. Aris HAS published the study (placing him in the minority).
Identifying this direct contradiction confirms that the claim is logically impossible.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chaining and Subgroup Quantifiers
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1187Soru →

According to the newly adopted protocols by the Ministry of Health, a pharmaceutical company is permitted to bypass the standard three-phase clinical trial only if the medication in question targets a designated rare disease or has already received full regulatory approval in a recognized partner nation.

Which one of the following logically follows from the Ministry of Health's protocols?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If a medication neither targets a designated rare disease nor has received full regulatory approval in a recognized partner nation, then the pharmaceutical company is not permitted to bypass the standard three-phase clinical trial.

Cevap

If a medication neither targets a designated rare disease nor has received full regulatory approval in a recognized partner nation, then the pharmaceutical company is not permitted to bypass the standard three-phase clinical trial.
This option accurately presents the logically valid contrapositive of the stimulus. The original statement is structured as: Bypass -> (Rare Disease OR Partner Approval). The contrapositive requires negating both sides and reversing the logical arrow. Crucially, by De Morgan's laws, negating a disjunction (Rare Disease OR Partner Approval) creates a conjunction (NOT Rare Disease AND NOT Partner Approval). Therefore, if a medication lacks both required criteria, the company is absolutely not permitted to bypass the clinical trials.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the sufficient and necessary conditions in the stimulus.
Sufficient condition: permitted to bypass trials. Necessary condition: targets a rare disease OR has partner approval.
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition.
2
Formalize the conditional statement.
Bypass -> (Rare Disease OR Partner Approval)
This establishes the core logical relationship provided by the Ministry of Health's protocol.
3
Apply De Morgan's laws to form the valid contrapositive.
Negating an 'OR' statement creates an 'AND' statement. Therefore: (NOT Rare Disease AND NOT Partner Approval) -> NOT Bypass.
A valid contrapositive requires reversing the conditions and negating both sides. For compound conditionals, De Morgan's laws mandate flipping disjunctions to conjunctions.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find the match.
The correct option perfectly reflects the deduction: neither targeting a rare disease nor having approval (NOT Rare Disease AND NOT Partner Approval) means the company is not permitted to bypass the trial.
The correct answer to a 'must be true' inference question testing conditionals is almost always the exact contrapositive.

Anahtar Kavram

Forming contrapositives of compound conditional statements using De Morgan's laws.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1188Soru →

Read the following information and evaluate the logical validity of the statement below.

Any climate model that predicts a complete reduction in Arctic sea ice by 2050 also assumes a rapid acceleration of oceanic warming. No climate model that assumes a rapid acceleration of oceanic warming fails to account for increased cloud cover albedo. Furthermore, only climate models that incorporate localized atmospheric pressure anomalies can accurately account for increased cloud cover albedo. An analysis of recent publications shows that several prominent climate models developed by the Global Meteorological Institute predict a complete reduction in Arctic sea ice by 2050.

Statement: Based on the information above, it must be true that most climate models developed by the Global Meteorological Institute incorporate localized atmospheric pressure anomalies.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The provided statement relies on an invalid quantifier escalation. By connecting the conditional rules, we can definitively prove that any model predicting a complete ice reduction must incorporate localized atmospheric pressure anomalies. Because 'several' Global Meteorological Institute (GMI) models predict this reduction, it must be true that 'some' GMI models incorporate the anomalies. However, 'several' does not mean 'most' (more than 50%), so the statement provided is an overreach and is not necessarily true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first conditional premise into formal logic.
Predict Ice Reduction → Assume Rapid Acceleration.
The word 'Any' introduces a sufficient condition.
2
Translate the second conditional premise into formal logic.
Assume Rapid Acceleration → Account for Albedo.
The phrase 'No [X] fails to [Y]' creates a double negative, meaning every [X] must do [Y].
3
Translate the third conditional premise into formal logic.
Account for Albedo → Incorporate Anomalies.
The word 'only' introduces a necessary condition.
4
Combine the translated premises to form a comprehensive logical chain.
Predict Ice Reduction → Assume Rapid Acceleration → Account for Albedo → Incorporate Anomalies.
The transitive property of conditional logic allows linking shared terms.
5
Evaluate the quantifier given in the final premise regarding the specific models.
Several (Some) GMI models → Predict Ice Reduction.
To apply the formal chain to the specific subgroup discussed in the stimulus.
6
Draw the valid inference and compare it to the given statement.
Valid deduction: Some GMI models → Incorporate Anomalies. The statement claims 'most', which is an invalid escalation.
In formal logic, 'some' (at least one) does not mathematically justify 'most' (more than half).

Anahtar Kavram

Quantifier logic (translating 'several' to 'some') and recognizing unsupported magnitude escalations within complex conditional deductions.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1189Soru →

Match each logical refutation in the left column with the argument in the right column that exhibits an identical parallel structure in its use of a counterexample.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The dean argues that no student can master advanced calculus unless they have first taken linear algebra. But consider the prodigy Riemann. He achieved perfect scores in advanced calculus despite never having studied linear algebra. This demonstrates that prior study of linear algebra is not an absolute prerequisite for mastering advanced calculus.
The mayor insists that implementing a universal basic income guarantees a reduction in petty crime. However, when the neighboring province instituted a universal basic income last decade, their petty crime rates actually increased by fifteen percent. Clearly, this economic policy does not inherently ensure a drop in petty crime.
The anthropologist hypothesizes that the collapse of Bronze Age civilizations was caused exclusively by prolonged droughts. However, the Indus Valley civilization collapsed during a period of documented excessive rainfall and flooding, with no evidence of drought. Thus, factors other than drought must be capable of causing such civilizational collapses.
The software developer claims that any application with both end-to-end encryption and decentralized servers is immune to data breaches. However, the recent CryptoChat app utilized both end-to-end encryption and decentralized servers, yet it suffered a massive data breach last week. Consequently, combining these two security features does not confer absolute immunity.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct structural mappings are: The Dean's argument matches the Safety Inspector's argument (Left 1 to Right 4). The Mayor's argument matches the Marketing Director's argument (Left 2 to Right 1). The Anthropologist's argument matches the Mechanic's argument (Left 3 to Right 2). The Software Developer's argument matches the Botanist's argument (Left 4 to Right 3).
Each matched pair shares an identical formal refutation structure. They align perfectly in how they use a specific case to attack either a necessary condition, a simple sufficient condition, an exclusive causal relationship, or a compound sufficient condition. This demonstrates mastery of mapping the logical role of a counterexample across different subject matters.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure of Left 1.
The argument refutes a necessary condition ('unless') by demonstrating an instance where the necessary condition is absent, but the sufficient condition still occurs.
Identifying the formal conditional logic (necessary vs. sufficient) is required to find a structural parallel.
2
Identify the matching structure for Left 1 among the right items.
Right 4 uses the exact same 'unless' conditional structure and refutes it by showing a building surviving without the necessary retrofitting.
Parallel reasoning requires identical logical architecture.
3
Analyze the logical structure of Left 2 and Left 4.
Left 2 refutes a simple sufficient condition ('guarantees'). Left 4 refutes a compound sufficient condition ('any application with both X and Y').
Distinguishing between simple and compound conditions ensures precise matching without falling for structural traps.
4
Map Left 2 and Left 4 to their respective counterparts.
Left 2 maps to Right 1 (simple sufficient condition). Left 4 maps to Right 3 (compound sufficient condition: 'exposed to both X and Y').
This confirms the structural mapping based on conditional complexity.
5
Verify the remaining pair (Left 3 and Right 2).
Both Left 3 and Right 2 refute a claim of exclusive causation by presenting an instance where the effect occurs without the purported exclusive cause.
Elimination and verification confirm the final structural parallel.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Method of Reasoning (Counterexamples)
Soru 1190Soru →

If an architectural firm is to win the city's waterfront redevelopment contract, it must either incorporate extensive green spaces into its design or partner with a prominent local engineering company. However, a firm cannot partner with a prominent local engineering company unless it agrees to a profit-sharing model dictated by the city council. The Apex Architectural Group steadfastly refuses to agree to any profit-sharing model. Thus, if Apex is to win the waterfront redevelopment contract, it must incorporate extensive green spaces into its design.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most logically similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If a new drug is to be approved for treating the rare disease, it must either demonstrate unprecedented efficacy or have no severe side effects. A drug can have no severe side effects only if its active compound is synthesized at low temperatures. The experimental drug X-12 cannot be synthesized at low temperatures. Therefore, if X-12 is to be approved for treating the rare disease, it must demonstrate unprecedented efficacy.

Cevap

The argument concerning the new drug approval perfectly parallels the logical structure of the architectural firm stimulus.
The correct answer perfectly mirrors the logical skeleton of the stimulus. Both arguments state a sufficient condition that requires at least one of two necessary conditions. They then establish a further necessary condition for one of the original disjuncts, demonstrate that a specific subject fails to meet this further condition, and validly conclude that if the subject fulfills the initial sufficient condition, it must satisfy the remaining necessary condition.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the stimulus into formal logic.
Win Contract (W) -> Green Spaces (G) OR Partner (P). Partner (P) -> Profit Sharing (S) (from 'cannot P unless S'). Apex: ~S. Therefore, Apex: ~P. Conclusion: For Apex, W -> G.
Identifying the precise conditional relationships and the valid chain of deductions is required to find an exact structural parallel.
2
Analyze the correct option's logical structure.
Approved (A) -> Efficacy (E) OR No Side Effects (N). No Side Effects (N) -> Low Temp (L) (from 'N only if L'). Drug X-12: ~L. Therefore, X-12: ~N. Conclusion: For X-12, A -> E.
Mapping the candidate argument demonstrates 1:1 structural isomorphism with the stimulus.
3
Evaluate the distractors for structural deviations.
The software argument concludes B -> A (illegal reversal). The novel argument concludes ~A -> ~B (illegal negation). The mayoral argument reaches an absolute rather than conditional conclusion. The athlete argument commits a necessary/sufficient flaw by affirming the consequent in the secondary premise.
Parallel reasoning requires exact logical equivalence; any formal flaw or mismatch in conclusion modality eliminates the option.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Conditional Logic
Soru 1191Soru →

In the town of Greenville, a local ordinance requires that all residential buildings constructed after the year 2020 be equipped with solar panels. The Oakwood Apartment complex, a residential building in Greenville, was completed in 2022. On the other hand, the Pinecone Townhomes, another residential building in Greenville, are not equipped with solar panels.

Based on the information above, which of the following statements are most strongly supported?

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The Oakwood Apartment complex is equipped with solar panels.; The Pinecone Townhomes were not constructed after the year 2020.

Cevap

The statements supported are that the Oakwood Apartment complex is equipped with solar panels, and the Pinecone Townhomes were not constructed after the year 2020.
The stimulus establishes a conditional rule: If a residential building in Greenville is constructed after 2020, it must have solar panels. The Oakwood complex meets this sufficient condition (built in 2022), so it must have solar panels. The Pinecone Townhomes lack solar panels, meaning they fail the necessary condition. By contrapositive logic, they could not have been built after 2020.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core conditional rule provided in the stimulus.
Rule: If a residential building in Greenville was constructed after 2020, then it is equipped with solar panels.
Establishing the main conditional statement is necessary to evaluate which inferences are logically valid.
2
Apply the conditional rule to the Oakwood Apartment complex.
Oakwood is a residential building completed in 2022 (after 2020). Therefore, it must be equipped with solar panels.
This directly applies the sufficient condition of the rule (Modus Ponens) to derive a valid conclusion.
3
Apply the conditional rule to the Pinecone Townhomes.
Pinecone is a residential building without solar panels. Therefore, it was not constructed after 2020.
This applies the contrapositive of the rule (Modus Tollens): If it does not have solar panels, it cannot have been constructed after 2020.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating valid inferences using conditional logic, including direct application (Modus Ponens) and the contrapositive (Modus Tollens).
Soru 1192Soru →

Sociologist: Some scholars claim that the accelerating extinction of minority languages is driven exclusively by the economic advantages associated with fluency in dominant global languages. This perspective, however, ignores the profound impact of social stigma. In many regions, the dominant culture characterizes minority language use as a marker of lower social status. To protect their children from discrimination, parents in these communities frequently choose to raise them speaking only the dominant language. It follows that economic factors alone cannot fully explain the phenomenon of language loss. Thus, the desire to avoid social marginalization must be recognized as a primary catalyst in the disappearance of minority languages.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The need to avert social marginalization should be recognized as a major contributing factor in the extinction of minority languages.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the need to avert social marginalization should be recognized as a major contributing factor in the extinction of minority languages.
The argument builds toward its final sentence, which serves as the ultimate conclusion: the desire to avoid social marginalization must be recognized as a primary catalyst in the disappearance of minority languages. The correct option is a direct paraphrase of this final claim.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the author's primary objective in the passage.
The author aims to refute the claim that language extinction is strictly driven by economics and to propose social stigma as an equally important driver.
Understanding the author's overarching motive helps locate the ultimate conclusion they are trying to prove.
2
Deconstruct the argument into its structural components (premises, opposing views, intermediate conclusions, and main conclusion).
Opposing view: Economics is the exclusive driver. Premises: Stigma exists; parents avoid minority languages to protect children. Intermediate Conclusion: Economics alone cannot explain the loss. Main Conclusion: Avoiding marginalization is a primary catalyst.
Structural analysis strictly separates the evidence and intermediate steps from the final, overarching claim.
3
Select the answer choice that most accurately paraphrases the main conclusion.
The correct choice accurately mirrors the final sentence of the stimulus, highlighting the necessity to recognize social marginalization as a primary catalyst.
The correct answer for a Main Conclusion question must match the author's ultimate claim without adding outside information or confusing it with supporting statements.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions
Soru 1193Soru →

Critics of algorithmic sentencing models assert that such systems inevitably violate the constitutional guarantee of individualized justice, given that they derive punitive recommendations from aggregate statistical probabilities rather than a defendant’s unique circumstances. Yet, this prevailing critique fundamentally misapprehends the nature of judicial discretion. Since human magistrates consistently manifest unconscious cognitive biases that precipitate systemic demographic disparities in penal outcomes, algorithmic systems—despite their reliance on aggregates—actually provide a closer approximation of individualized justice. Consequently, integrating algorithmic risk assessments is essential for rectifying systemic inequities in the courtroom.

The claim that human magistrates consistently manifest unconscious cognitive biases that precipitate systemic demographic disparities in penal outcomes plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a premise offered to support the claim that relying on algorithmic systems yields outcomes more consistent with individualized justice than does relying on human discretion.

Cevap

The statement acts as a premise that directly supports an intermediate conclusion regarding the efficacy of algorithmic systems in approximating individualized justice.
The target statement is introduced by the premise indicator 'Since'. It serves as evidence to justify the subsequent clause in the same sentence: that algorithmic systems 'actually provide a closer approximation of individualized justice.' This supported clause functions as an intermediate conclusion, which is then used to justify the argument's final main conclusion regarding the necessity of integrating algorithmic risk assessments. Therefore, the statement is a premise offered to support the claim about algorithmic systems yielding outcomes more consistent with individualized justice.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The final sentence beginning with 'Consequently' is the main conclusion: integrating algorithmic risk assessments is essential for rectifying systemic inequities.
Locating the main conclusion establishes the ultimate destination of the argument, making it easier to determine how other statements contribute to reaching that destination.
2
Analyze the structural indicators surrounding the target statement.
The target statement is introduced by the premise indicator 'Since' and is followed by a comma and the claim that algorithmic systems 'actually provide a closer approximation of individualized justice.'
Structural indicators reveal the logical relationship between adjacent clauses.
3
Determine the functional relationship between the target statement and the rest of the author's argument.
The target statement (human bias causes disparities) is used as evidence to prove that algorithms are better at achieving individualized justice (an intermediate conclusion). This intermediate conclusion then supports the main conclusion.
Understanding the multi-layered structure (Premise -> Intermediate Conclusion -> Main Conclusion) is necessary to precisely define the role of the statement.
4
Match the identified role to the answer choices.
The correct description must state that the target statement is a premise supporting the intermediate claim about algorithmic systems yielding better individualized justice.
This aligns perfectly with the accurate structural analysis.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Complex Argument Structures
Soru 1194Soru →

Match each conditional cybersecurity rule from the corporate protocol manual on the left with its logically equivalent contrapositive on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A contractor receives elevated system privileges only if they pass a comprehensive security audit.
Deploying the emergency containment protocol requires both authorization from the director and at least two active secondary servers.
The internal communications network will remain isolated unless the external threat neutralizes.
An employee's device is flagged for immediate review if it connects to an unsecured network or downloads restricted software.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches pair each original statement with its exact logical contrapositive by reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions, negating both, and properly applying De Morgan's laws to compound rules.
Each correct right-side item represents a logically valid deduction from the corresponding left-side item. The contrapositive is formed by universally reversing the direction of the conditional relationship and negating both sides. When terms include 'AND' or 'OR', De Morgan's laws correctly transform the operators during the negation process.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the 'only if' statement regarding system privileges.
Matches with 'If a contractor does not pass a comprehensive security audit...'
'Only if' indicates a necessary condition (Privileges -> Audit). Reversing and negating yields: If not Audit, then not Privileges.
2
Analyze the compound 'requires both' statement regarding the containment protocol.
Matches with 'If director authorization is missing or there are fewer than two active secondary servers...'
The sufficient condition is deploying the protocol. The necessary condition is a conjunction (Director AND Servers). The contrapositive negates the conjunction into a disjunction (Not Director OR Not Servers).
3
Analyze the 'unless' statement regarding the communications network.
Matches with 'If the internal communications network does not remain isolated...'
'Unless' is translated as 'if not' (If not Neutralized -> Isolated). The contrapositive flips and negates this: If not Isolated -> Neutralized.
4
Analyze the compound 'if' statement regarding employee devices.
Matches with 'If an employee's device is not flagged for immediate review...'
The 'if' introduces a sufficient condition that is a disjunction (Unsecured OR Restricted -> Flagged). The contrapositive negates the disjunction into a conjunction: Not Flagged -> (Not Unsecured AND Not Restricted).

Anahtar Kavram

Forming Contrapositives and Applying De Morgan's Laws
Soru 1195Soru →

A financial regulatory board has issued a new set of auditing standards. Below are four rules extracted from these standards. Match each English regulatory rule to its accurate formal logical diagram.

Use the following variables for your diagramming:
AA: The audit is approved
RR: The receipts are verified
LL: The ledger is balanced
DD: Discrepancies are reported

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

No audit is approved without both the receipts being verified and the ledger being balanced.
The ledger is balanced if the audit is approved, unless discrepancies are reported.
The audit being approved requires the receipts to be verified, but the ledger being balanced is sufficient for the audit to be approved.
The audit is approved if, but only if, the ledger is balanced and no discrepancies are reported.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches are:
'No audit is approved without both...' matches with A→(R∧L)A \rightarrow (R \land L)
'The ledger is balanced if the audit is approved, unless...' matches with A→(L∨D)A \rightarrow (L \lor D)
'The audit being approved requires the receipts...' matches with (A→R)∧(L→A)(A \rightarrow R) \land (L \rightarrow A)
'The audit is approved if, but only if...' matches with A↔(L∧¬D)A \leftrightarrow (L \land \neg D)
Each statement successfully maps English syntactic cues to their formal propositional logic equivalents. Mastering the nuances of words like 'unless', 'only if', and 'requires' ensures you avoid illegal reversals or negations in deduction chains.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first statement for necessary conditions.
Translates 'No X without Y' to X -> Y, resulting in A -> (R AND L).
The 'without' modifier establishes that the absence of R and L precludes A, meaning A firmly implies their presence.
2
Deconstruct the 'unless' clause in the second statement.
Translates to ~D -> (A -> L), which is logically equivalent to A -> (L OR D).
'Unless' negates the following condition to form the sufficient trigger. Distributing this across the nested conditional yields an 'OR' relationship on the necessary side.
3
Split the third statement into its 'requires' and 'sufficient' components.
Yields two separate conditionals: A -> R and L -> A.
The sentence explicitly divides the relationship between R being necessary for A, and L being sufficient to guarantee A.
4
Identify the biconditional indicator in the fourth statement.
Translates 'if, but only if' to a two-way arrow, resulting in A <-> (L AND ~D).
Biconditionals indicate that both sides of the relationship are simultaneously necessary and sufficient for each other.

Anahtar Kavram

Accurate formal logical translation of complex English indicators ('unless', 'no X without Y', 'requires', 'sufficient', 'if, but only if').
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 1196Soru →

In any society where written records date back more than two millennia, the modern vocabulary contains archaic structural remnants. Unless a society has undergone a complete linguistic substitution event, societies with archaic structural remnants in their modern vocabulary possess an oral tradition that influences contemporary syntax. Furthermore, only societies that maintain strong geographical isolation or have highly formalized educational systems experience a complete linguistic substitution event. Recent linguistic surveys show that the Qari people, whose written records date back more than two millennia, lack any highly formalized educational system, yet their contemporary syntax is completely uninfluenced by any oral tradition.

Based on the information above, which of the following statements MUST be true? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The Qari people have experienced a complete linguistic substitution event.; The Qari people maintain strong geographical isolation.

Cevap

The correct answers establish that the Qari people have experienced a complete linguistic substitution event and that they maintain strong geographical isolation.
Based on the premises, the Qari people have written records older than two millennia, which guarantees their vocabulary contains archaic structural remnants. Because their syntax is uninfluenced by an oral tradition, they fail the necessary condition for societies that have not undergone a complete linguistic substitution event. Thus, they must have experienced this event. Finally, since only societies with geographical isolation or formalized education experience this event, and the Qari lack formalized education, they must maintain strong geographical isolation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the first conditional statement regarding written records.
Written records > 2,000 years -> Archaic structural remnants.
This establishes a sufficient condition for having archaic structural remnants.
2
Diagram the 'unless' conditional statement.
NOT Complete linguistic substitution -> (Archaic structural remnants -> Influencing oral tradition).
'Unless' introduces a necessary condition for the negated sufficient condition. This creates a nested conditional logic structure.
3
Diagram the 'only' conditional statement regarding substitution events.
Complete linguistic substitution -> (Strong geographical isolation OR Formalized educational system).
'Only' introduces necessary conditions, meaning if the event occurred, at least one of the two conditions must be met.
4
Apply the given facts about the Qari people to the established conditional chain.
Because the Qari have written records > 2,000 years, they have archaic structural remnants. Because they do not have an influencing oral tradition, the condition (Archaic structural remnants -> Influencing oral tradition) is false. By modus tollens on Step 2, they must have experienced a complete linguistic substitution event.
This guarantees the truth of the statement regarding the linguistic substitution event.
5
Apply the finding from Step 4 to the conditional from Step 3.
Since the Qari experienced the substitution event, they must have either geographical isolation or a formalized educational system. Since we are told they lack the formalized educational system, they must maintain strong geographical isolation.
This uses disjunctive syllogism to prove the second correct statement.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional statements, applying modus tollens, and translating 'unless' and 'only' phrasing.
Soru 1197Soru →

Analyze the argument below. Match each statement from the argument to its corresponding structural role.

Philologists have traditionally classified the newly discovered Oakhaven runic script as a purely ceremonial alphabet used exclusively in religious rituals. However, this classification is almost certainly incorrect. Recent excavations at the Oakhaven site uncovered dozens of everyday commercial ledgers written entirely in this script. The presence of mundane transaction records demonstrates that the script was actually widely utilized for daily administrative and trade purposes. Because a script used for daily commerce must have been understood by a significant portion of the general populace, we can conclude that literacy in the Oakhaven region was much more widespread than previously believed.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The script was actually widely utilized for daily administrative and trade purposes.
Recent excavations at the Oakhaven site uncovered dozens of everyday commercial ledgers written entirely in this script.
Literacy in the Oakhaven region was much more widespread than previously believed.
The newly discovered Oakhaven runic script was a purely ceremonial alphabet used exclusively in religious rituals.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The statement about daily administrative use is the intermediate conclusion. The discovery of ledgers is the empirical evidence. The claim about widespread literacy is the ultimate conclusion. The ceremonial alphabet claim is the refuted traditional view.
The correct mapping identifies the hierarchical structure of the argument. The traditional view is presented only to be rejected. The archaeological discovery serves as foundational evidence (a premise), which logically leads to the intermediate conclusion that the script was used for daily commerce. This intermediate conclusion then serves as a premise supporting the final ultimate conclusion that literacy was widespread.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that literacy in the Oakhaven region was much more widespread than previously believed.
The phrase 'we can conclude that' points to the final claim derived from all the preceding context and evidence.
2
Identify the intermediate conclusion.
The intermediate conclusion is that the script was widely utilized for daily administrative and trade purposes.
It is supported by the ledger evidence ('demonstrates that') and acts as a premise for the final conclusion about literacy ('Because a script used for daily commerce...').
3
Identify the primary evidence.
The discovery of everyday commercial ledgers written in the script is the primary empirical evidence.
This is a direct factual observation that triggers the subsequent inferences in the argument.
4
Identify the opposing view.
The claim that the script was a purely ceremonial alphabet is a discredited hypothesis.
It is introduced as what philologists 'have traditionally classified' and is immediately challenged by the author stating 'this classification is almost certainly incorrect'.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate conclusions and mapping logical structures in multi-step arguments.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1198Soru →

Policy Analyst: The extraction of minerals from the deep seabed in international waters is effectively governed by a centralized international tribunal that mandates strict environmental protection protocols and redistributes a portion of all profits to developing nations. If we want to ensure the environmentally safe and globally equitable development of asteroid mining, we must establish a comparable international tribunal to issue licenses, enforce environmental standards, and distribute a share of the profits.

Which of the following statements, if true, identify relevant points of disanalogy between asteroid mining and deep-sea mining that logically weaken the analyst's argument? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Unlike the deep seabed, where extraction directly threatens fragile marine ecosystems, asteroids are entirely sterile bodies devoid of biological life, rendering strict environmental protection protocols unnecessary.; The initial capital required for asteroid mining is exponentially higher than the costs of deep-sea mining, meaning that mandatory profit redistribution would completely deter the private investment necessary to develop space extraction.

Cevap

The correct options are the ones stating that asteroids are sterile bodies rendering environmental protocols unnecessary, and that the exponentially higher capital required for asteroid mining makes profit redistribution unviable.
Arguments by analogy fail when there are relevant differences between the two things being compared. The author assumes that because environmental protocols and profit redistribution work for the deep seabed, they will work for asteroids. The correct answers expose critical differences: the biological sterility of asteroids removes the need for environmental protection, and the distinct economic realities of space travel make profit redistribution unworkable.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure and the specific analogy being made.
The argument compares deep-sea mining (analog) to asteroid mining (target). It concludes that because a tribunal successfully uses environmental protocols and profit redistribution for the seabed, the same mechanisms should be applied to asteroids.
Understanding the precise points of comparison is necessary to evaluate the analogy.
2
Identify the criteria for a correct answer.
The correct answers must point out a difference (disanalogy) between the deep seabed and asteroids that makes applying the specific solutions (environmental protocols or profit redistribution) inappropriate or ineffective for asteroids.
The prompt explicitly asks for relevant points of disanalogy that weaken the argument.
3
Evaluate the options against the criteria.
The option regarding sterile asteroid environments dismantles the need for environmental protocols. The option regarding the exponentially higher capital costs dismantles the viability of profit redistribution.
Both of these options strike directly at the core mechanisms the author is trying to transfer from the analog to the target.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Arguments by Analogy
Soru 1199Soru →

The vast majority of professional tennis players use custom rackets that are tightly strung to provide more control. In contrast, beginner tennis players generally benefit more from loosely strung rackets, which provide more power and are more forgiving. Liam is a professional tennis player who recently switched to a loosely strung racket.

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Liam's current choice of racket stringing is uncommon among professional tennis players.

Cevap

Liam's current choice of racket stringing is uncommon among professional tennis players.
The passage explicitly states that the 'vast majority' of professional players use tightly strung rackets. Because Liam is a professional who uses a loosely strung racket, his choice places him outside that vast majority, meaning his choice is uncommon for professionals.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core facts given about professional players and about Liam.
The vast majority of professionals use tightly strung rackets. Liam is a professional who uses a loosely strung racket.
Synthesizing the explicit facts is necessary to find a conclusion that is directly supported by the text.
2
Determine the logical intersection of these facts without adding outside assumptions.
Since most professionals do not use loosely strung rackets, a professional like Liam who does use one is making a choice that goes against the majority.
This leads directly to a safe, strongly supported inference that avoids extreme language.

Anahtar Kavram

Synthesizing explicit premises to find a safely supported conclusion while avoiding assumptions about motives or reversed conditional logic.
Soru 1200Soru →

According to the latest archaeological report from the Kaelen Valley excavation: Any ceramic artifact found in Stratum C that exhibits cobalt glazing must have been fired at temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees Celsius. However, extensive structural analysis confirms that no kiln located in the valley's Northern Settlement was capable of sustaining temperatures above 1000 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, all discovered artifacts featuring the 'Crescent Moon' motif were produced exclusively in the kilns of the Northern Settlement and all of them exhibit cobalt glazing.

Statement: Based strictly on the rules provided in the archaeological report, it is logically possible for a ceramic artifact featuring the 'Crescent Moon' motif to have been discovered in Stratum C.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The statement is False, as it describes a logically impossible scenario that directly contradicts the provided deductive chain.
The correct answer is False because the statement claims a scenario is logically possible when the premises strictly prohibit it. A Crescent Moon artifact is necessarily fired in a Northern Settlement kiln (meaning a maximum of 1000 degrees) and has cobalt glazing. According to the first rule, any cobalt-glazed item in Stratum C must be fired above 1000 degrees. Because a single artifact cannot fulfill both conflicting temperature conditions, it physically cannot be found in Stratum C.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional rules regarding Stratum C and temperature.
Artifact found in Stratum C AND exhibits cobalt glazing → Fired > 1000 degrees Celsius.
To establish the baseline requirements for the hypothetical scenario presented in the statement.
2
Map the properties of Crescent Moon artifacts based on the premises.
Crescent Moon motif → Fired in Northern Settlement kilns AND exhibits cobalt glazing.
To explicitly identify the inherent traits of the subject being evaluated.
3
Determine the temperature constraints of the Northern Settlement kilns.
Fired in Northern Settlement kilns → NOT Fired > 1000 degrees Celsius (Max 1000 degrees).
To link the production origin of the artifact to the overarching temperature rules.
4
Synthesize the rules to test the possibility of a Crescent Moon artifact existing in Stratum C.
Placing it in Stratum C triggers the requirement of being fired > 1000 degrees (due to its cobalt glazing). However, its origin in Northern kilns restricts it to ≤ 1000 degrees. This is a direct contradiction, meaning the placement is logically impossible.
To prove via modus tollens that the statement violates the established parameters and therefore cannot be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Cannot Be True Questions
ÖncekiSayfa 60 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin