Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 1201Soru →

Linguist: Creole languages emerge when groups lacking a common tongue are forced into prolonged contact. Notably, the syntax of early, first-generation creoles completely lacks the recursive structures characteristic of fully established languages. This demonstrates that the initial formation of a creole is driven strictly by immediate transactional necessity rather than an intrinsic drive for complex cognitive expression. However, when a creole is acquired by a subsequent generation as their native tongue, it rapidly develops these missing recursive features. Therefore, the activation of the human brain's full capacity for complex grammar requires the process of native language acquisition, not merely the pressure of basic communication.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the linguist's argument by the claim that the initial formation of a creole is driven strictly by immediate transactional necessity rather than an intrinsic drive for complex cognitive expression?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is derived from the observation about early creole syntax and serves to support the argument's overall conclusion.

Cevap

The statement acts as an intermediate conclusion. It is deduced from a premise and then used to support the final main conclusion.
The target statement is introduced by the phrase 'This demonstrates that', which clearly signals it is a deduction based on the preceding premise (that early creoles lack recursive structures). It is not the final point of the argument, however. The author uses this established point about 'immediate transactional necessity' to set up a contrast with subsequent generations, ultimately building toward the final main conclusion (signaled by 'Therefore') regarding native language acquisition. A statement that is supported by a premise and in turn supports the main conclusion is an intermediate conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is the final sentence: 'Therefore, the activation of the human brain's full capacity for complex grammar requires the process of native language acquisition...'
Finding the main conclusion first provides the anchor point for understanding how all other structural elements function.
2
Analyze the relationship between the target statement and the preceding sentence.
The preceding sentence states that early creoles lack recursive structures. The target statement begins with 'This demonstrates that...', showing it is a conclusion drawn from that fact.
This establishes that the target statement is a conclusion rather than a basic premise or background information.
3
Analyze the relationship between the target statement and the main conclusion.
The target statement establishes that basic communication needs only produce simple syntax. This contrasts with the subsequent generation's development of complex syntax, logically leading to the main conclusion.
Because the statement is a conclusion itself, but also supports a further conclusion, it is structurally an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 1202Soru →

Review the following brief arguments. Which of the arguments exhibit a flawed pattern of reasoning that confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient condition, or a sufficient condition for a necessary condition? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If a novel is nominated for the prestigious literary award, it will see a significant increase in sales. The author's latest novel was not nominated for the award, so it will not experience a significant increase in sales.; A thriving coral reef ecosystem requires clear, pollution-free water. Because the water in this coastal bay has recently become clear and free of pollution, a thriving coral reef ecosystem will soon develop.

Cevap

The arguments concerning the literary award novel and the coral reef ecosystem.
The argument about the literary award novel commits an illegal negation by assuming that the absence of a sufficient condition guarantees the absence of the necessary condition. The argument about the coral reef ecosystem commits an illegal reversal by treating a required (necessary) condition as a guarantee (sufficient condition). Both represent the requested flawed patterns of conditional reasoning.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each argument to determine its core logical structure and identify its premises and conclusion.
The arguments are broken down into their conditional, causal, definitional, or structural claims.
Identifying the underlying structure is necessary to pinpoint the exact logical flaw committed in each scenario.
2
Evaluate whether any argument contains conditional reasoning (if-then statements or necessary/sufficient indicators).
The novel argument ('If a novel...') and the coral reef argument ('...requires...') both explicitly rely on conditional relationships.
The targeted flaws (illegal reversal and illegal negation) only occur within arguments using conditional logic.
3
Determine if the conditional arguments incorrectly reverse or negate their terms.
The novel argument incorrectly negates the sufficient condition, and the coral reef argument incorrectly assumes a necessary condition is sufficient.
This confirms that both of these arguments commit the specific conditional flaws requested by the stem.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying illegal reversals and illegal negations in conditional reasoning
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1203Soru →

Read the following information carefully:

All commercial banking systems that implement immediate settlement protocols require robust interbank liquidity. A banking system cannot maintain robust interbank liquidity unless it relies on overnight lending facilities or holds substantial excess reserves. Any system that relies on overnight lending facilities is vulnerable to sudden credit freezes. However, holding substantial excess reserves invariably suppresses the system's overall profitability. Furthermore, no system that is vulnerable to sudden credit freezes can attract international venture capital.

Based strictly on the information above, evaluate whether the following statement must be true: Any commercial banking system that implements immediate settlement protocols but manages to attract international venture capital must experience suppressed overall profitability.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement accurately reflects a forced deductive chain. A system with immediate settlement must have robust liquidity (requiring either overnight lending or excess reserves). By successfully attracting international venture capital, the system proves it is not vulnerable to credit freezes, meaning it cannot be relying on overnight lending. The only remaining way to satisfy the liquidity requirement is by holding excess reserves, which guarantees suppressed profitability.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the first premise relating settlement protocols and liquidity.
Immediate Settlement (IS) -> Robust Interbank Liquidity (RIL)
To establish the initial condition required for any system implementing immediate settlement protocols.
2
Diagram the 'unless' condition regarding how robust liquidity is maintained.
RIL -> Overnight Lending (OL) OR Excess Reserves (ER)
To show the only two possible pathways available once a system has robust interbank liquidity.
3
Diagram the consequences of overnight lending and excess reserves.
OL -> Vulnerable to Credit Freezes (VCF), and ER -> Suppressed Profitability (SP)
To link the two pathways to their inevitable respective outcomes as stated in the text.
4
Diagram the condition regarding international venture capital and evaluate its contrapositive.
VCF -> Cannot Attract International VC (~AIVC), which translates via contrapositive to: Attracting International VC (AIVC) -> ~VCF
To understand what can be deduced if a system successfully attracts international venture capital.
5
Chain the deductions based on the hypothetical scenario in the statement (IS and AIVC).
IS -> RIL -> (OL or ER). Since AIVC -> ~VCF, and OL -> VCF, we know ~OL. Thus, ER must be true. Since ER -> SP, SP must be true.
To definitively prove that any system meeting both conditions (IS and AIVC) is forced down the Excess Reserves pathway, necessarily resulting in Suppressed Profitability.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chaining and Contrapositives
Soru 1204Soru →

Read the passage below outlining a debate in corporate law. Determine the structural function of each extracted quote by pairing it with its correct argumentative role.

Legal theorists generally assert that corporate liability shields must be strictly maintained, since the fundamental purpose of incorporation is insulating investors from personal ruin. Critics counter that such absolute protection inevitably breeds corporate negligence. However, this objection clearly misjudges the broader economic consequences. If shareholders were routinely exposed to personal liability for corporate missteps, funding for speculative yet socially vital enterprises would entirely evaporate. Consequently, an uncompromising liability shield remains indispensable for sustained economic progress.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

"...the fundamental purpose of incorporation is insulating investors from personal ruin."
"...such absolute protection inevitably breeds corporate negligence."
"...this objection clearly misjudges the broader economic consequences."
"...an uncompromising liability shield remains indispensable for sustained economic progress."

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match the foundational premise to the rationale (Left 1 to Right 4), the critics' claim to the refuted position (Left 2 to Right 3), the author's dismissal of the critics to the subsidiary conclusion (Left 3 to Right 2), and the final sentence to the main conclusion (Left 4 to Right 1).
The argument is structured by first introducing a policy and its rationale (Left 1), then presenting a criticism of that policy (Left 2). The author then asserts an intermediate conclusion rejecting this criticism (Left 3), which is supported by a premise about funding evaporation. Finally, the author draws the main conclusion that the policy must be maintained (Left 4).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the passage.
The final sentence (Left 4) is the main conclusion, definitively indicated by the word 'Consequently'.
Establishing the main conclusion first anchors the structural analysis of the rest of the argument.
2
Analyze the author's response to opposing views.
Left 2 represents the critics' opposing view, while Left 3 is the author's intermediate conclusion specifically rejecting that opposing view.
Distinguishing between opposing claims and the author's rebuttals is crucial for determining statement roles in complex arguments.
3
Evaluate the role of the opening explanatory statement.
Left 1 is a premise that explains why liability shields exist in the first place, supporting the general position that the author ultimately defends.
Understanding background context and subsidiary premises prevents confusing them with the author's active conclusions.

Anahtar Kavram

Determining Statement Roles in Logical Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1205Soru →

According to the revised federal tax code, for a corporation to qualify for the green energy exemption, it is necessary that the corporation either sources at least half of its electricity from renewable methods or invests heavily in carbon sequestration research. The exemption was created to incentivize sustainable business practices across all industrial sectors without crippling economic growth.

Which one of the following statements can be logically inferred from the information provided above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If a corporation neither sources at least half of its electricity from renewable methods nor invests heavily in carbon sequestration research, it does not qualify for the green energy exemption.

Cevap

The statement asserting that a corporation failing both the renewable sourcing requirement and the carbon sequestration investment requirement does not qualify for the green energy exemption.
The correct answer flawlessly applies the logical rule of contraposition and De Morgan's laws. The stimulus establishes that to qualify for the exemption, a corporation must meet at least one of two requirements (renewables OR sequestration). Therefore, if a corporation fails to meet both of these requirements, it has failed the necessary condition and logically cannot qualify for the exemption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conditional relationship in the stimulus.
Qualify for Exemption -> Source Renewables OR Invest in Sequestration.
The phrase 'it is necessary that... either... or' establishes the necessary conditions for qualifying.
2
Apply the rule for forming a contrapositive (negate and reverse) along with De Morgan's laws for compound conditionals.
NOT Source Renewables AND NOT Invest in Sequestration -> NOT Qualify for Exemption.
When a necessary condition contains an 'OR', negating it requires changing the 'OR' to an 'AND'. Failing both conditions guarantees the sufficient condition cannot occur.
3
Evaluate the options to find the one that matches this valid contrapositive.
The correct answer accurately states that failing both conditions ('neither... nor...') leads to not qualifying.
Only this option perfectly mirrors the logical deduction formed in step 2.

Anahtar Kavram

Forming Contrapositives with De Morgan's Laws
Soru 1206Soru →

In logical reasoning, a conditional flaw occurs when an argument confuses a necessary condition with a sufficient condition (illegal reversal) or confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary condition (illegal negation).

Which of the following arguments commit this type of conditional flaw? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Receiving the community service award requires completing at least 100 volunteer hours. David completed 120 volunteer hours, so he is guaranteed to receive the award.; If a software program is rigorously tested, it will have very few bugs. The new application was not rigorously tested, so it must have a large number of bugs.

Cevap

The argument about the community service award and the argument about the software testing both commit conditional logic flaws.
The argument about the community service award commits an illegal reversal by treating a necessary requirement as a sufficient guarantee. The argument about the software testing commits an illegal negation by treating a sufficient guarantee as a necessary requirement. Both demonstrate confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional logic in the community service award argument.
The premise states that 100 hours are required (necessary). The conclusion assumes that having 120 hours guarantees the award (treats it as sufficient).
To identify if a necessary condition was mistaken for a sufficient one (illegal reversal).
2
Analyze the conditional logic in the software testing argument.
The premise states that testing guarantees few bugs (sufficient). The conclusion assumes that a lack of testing guarantees many bugs (treats testing as necessary).
To identify if a sufficient condition was mistaken for a necessary one (illegal negation).
3
Evaluate the remaining arguments for conditional flaws.
The other arguments commit quantifier, causal, and numerical flaws rather than confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
To eliminate incorrect options and confirm the final selections.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1207Soru →

Historian: The sudden abandonment of the ancient city of Kaelen was triggered by either a prolonged drought, a severe plague, or a military invasion. Geological records demonstrate that the region experienced above-average rainfall during that century, ruling out drought. Furthermore, excavations have revealed no mass graves or biological indicators of disease typical of a plague. Consequently, a military invasion must have been the cause of the city's abandonment.

Which of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the historian's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Astronomer: The anomaly in the star's light curve is due to an exoplanet transit, a massive sunspot, or a dust cloud. The star's spectral lines show no magnetic disturbances typical of sunspots, and infrared observations definitively rule out a dust cloud. Thus, an exoplanet must be transiting the star.

Cevap

The argument concerning the astronomer, which concludes an exoplanet is transiting the star after ruling out a sunspot and a dust cloud.
The stimulus presents a flawless argument by elimination. It first establishes that exactly one of three possible causes (drought, plague, or military invasion) must be responsible for a phenomenon (the abandonment of the city). It then provides evidence to systematically rule out two of those possibilities (drought and plague). Finally, it concludes with absolute certainty that the remaining possibility (military invasion) must be the cause. The correct choice perfectly mirrors this logical structure: it lists three possible causes for an anomaly, rules out two of them using specific evidence, and concludes that the third must be the true cause.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure and method of reasoning in the stimulus.
The stimulus follows an argument by elimination pattern: Phenomenon P is caused by A, B, or C. Evidence proves not A and not B. Therefore, P is caused by C.
Identifying the exact logical framework is necessary to find a parallel argument.
2
Evaluate the certainty level and quantifier scope of the stimulus.
The historian's argument uses absolute language indicating complete certainty ('was triggered by either', 'must have been').
Parallel reasoning questions require the correct option to strictly match the degree of certainty in the original argument's premises and conclusion.
3
Examine the answer choices to find the one that matches both the elimination structure and the absolute level of certainty.
The astronomer option perfectly matches the 'A, B, or C; not A; not B; therefore C' structure using absolute certainty.
This is the only option that mirrors the exact method of reasoning without introducing conditional logic flaws, probability quantifiers, or direct affirmation.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Elimination (Disjunctive Syllogism)
Soru 1208Soru →

Any subduction zone that experiences deep episodic tremor and slip (ETS) exhibits extensive silica deposition within its upper mantle wedge. Extensive silica deposition within an upper mantle wedge always results in a reduction of the subduction zone's overall thermal conductivity. Furthermore, a subduction zone with reduced overall thermal conductivity cannot generate megathrust earthquakes exceeding magnitude 8.5 unless it maintains a trench-parallel sediment subduction rate of at least 5 centimeters per year. Research indicates that most subduction zones located in the Oakhaven tectonic basin experience deep ETS, yet none of the subduction zones in this basin maintain a trench-parallel sediment subduction rate of at least 5 centimeters per year.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Most subduction zones in the Oakhaven tectonic basin are incapable of generating megathrust earthquakes exceeding magnitude 8.5.

Cevap

Most subduction zones in the Oakhaven tectonic basin are incapable of generating megathrust earthquakes exceeding magnitude 8.5.
The correct answer accurately chains the formal logic. We know that most Oakhaven zones experience ETS, which guarantees they have reduced thermal conductivity. The rule states that zones with reduced thermal conductivity absolutely need a sediment rate of at least 5 cm/year to generate a >8.5 magnitude earthquake. Because ZERO subduction zones in the Oakhaven basin meet this 5 cm/year requirement, it is 100% provable that those specific zones (the 'most' that have reduced thermal conductivity) cannot generate >8.5 magnitude earthquakes.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the universal conditional chain provided in the first two sentences.
ETS -> Silica Deposition -> Reduced Thermal Conductivity.
This establishes that any zone experiencing ETS inherently has reduced thermal conductivity.
2
Translate the 'unless' rule into a formal conditional statement.
If Reduced Thermal Conductivity, then (Magnitude > 8.5 -> Sediment Rate >= 5). Contrapositive: If Reduced Thermal Conductivity, then (Sediment Rate < 5 -> CANNOT generate Magnitude > 8.5).
'Unless' introduces a necessary condition. Without the necessary sediment rate, the event (massive earthquake) cannot occur in these specific zones.
3
Analyze the specific facts given about the Oakhaven tectonic basin using the established rules.
Most Oakhaven zones have ETS (and therefore Reduced Thermal Conductivity). ALL Oakhaven zones have a Sediment Rate < 5.
Applying the rules to the specific data sets up the final deduction.
4
Synthesize the facts to reach a valid deduction.
Since 'most' Oakhaven zones have Reduced Thermal Conductivity, and all Oakhaven zones fail the necessary sediment rate requirement, those 'most' zones cannot generate >8.5 earthquakes.
Combining the 'most' quantifier with the universal negative constraint yields a 'most cannot' conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Must Be True Questions
Soru 1209Soru →

Consider the following principle from a city's architectural preservation guidelines:

A building is eligible for the heritage registry only if it retains its original facade and has not undergone major structural modifications.

The logically valid contrapositive of this principle is: If a building is not eligible for the heritage registry, then it must either not retain its original facade or have undergone major structural modifications.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The proposed statement is logically false because it is a Mistaken Negation of the original principle. The original conditional statement is 'If eligible, then retains facade AND no major modifications.' A valid contrapositive must both negate AND reverse the conditions, resulting in 'If does not retain facade OR has major modifications, then not eligible.' The statement provided correctly negates the terms using De Morgan's laws but fails to reverse them, incorrectly inferring the absence of the necessary conditions from the absence of the sufficient condition.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the sufficient and necessary conditions in the original principle.
Sufficient: A building is eligible for the heritage registry. Necessary: It retains its original facade AND has not undergone major structural modifications.
The phrase 'only if' introduces the necessary condition for a conditional statement.
2
Formalize the conditional statement.
Eligible → (Retains Facade AND NOT Major Modifications).
Translating the text into formal logic helps prevent structural errors when evaluating inferences.
3
Determine the logically valid contrapositive of the formal statement.
(NOT Retains Facade OR Major Modifications) → NOT Eligible.
A valid contrapositive is formed by reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions and negating both. According to De Morgan's laws, negating an 'AND' statement creates an 'OR' statement.
4
Evaluate the proposed statement against the valid contrapositive.
The proposed statement is: NOT Eligible → (NOT Retains Facade OR Major Modifications). This is a Mistaken Negation.
The statement negates the conditions but fails to reverse them, making it logically invalid.

Anahtar Kavram

Forming contrapositives using De Morgan's laws
Soru 1210Soru →

If a city implements a congestion tax, it inevitably sees a reduction in daytime traffic volume. Any city that sees a reduction in daytime traffic volume experiences a decline in retail revenue for downtown merchants unless the city concurrently expands its public transit network. Most cities that implement a congestion tax also increase their parking fees. Currently, the city of Oakhaven has implemented a congestion tax, but has not expanded its public transit network.

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: Any city that implements a congestion tax but does not expand its public transit network experiences a decline in retail revenue for downtown merchants.; Oakhaven is experiencing a decline in retail revenue for downtown merchants.

Cevap

The logically proven statements are that Oakhaven is experiencing a decline in retail revenue for downtown merchants, and that any city implementing a congestion tax without expanding transit experiences such a decline.
The correct statements can be logically proven by chaining the conditional premises. First, implementing a congestion tax guarantees a reduction in daytime traffic. Second, a reduction in traffic guarantees a decline in retail revenue unless public transit is expanded (meaning if transit is NOT expanded, revenue declines). Connecting these facts means any city with a congestion tax and no transit expansion must see a retail revenue decline. This proves the general rule correct. Furthermore, because the stimulus establishes that Oakhaven has a congestion tax and no transit expansion, it necessarily proves that Oakhaven experiences a decline in retail revenue.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the conditional statements presented in the stimulus.
Tax -> Traffic Reduction. Traffic Reduction -> (Revenue Decline OR Transit Expansion). Tax -most-> Fee Increase.
Visualizing the formal logic chains is necessary to accurately identify valid deductions.
2
Chain the conditional statements together.
Because Tax -> Traffic Reduction, we can substitute 'Tax' into the second statement: Tax -> (Revenue Decline OR Transit Expansion). This means if a city has a Tax but NO Transit Expansion, it MUST have a Revenue Decline.
The transitive property of formal logic allows linking related conditional premises to form broader general rules.
3
Apply the established logical rules to the specific case of Oakhaven.
Oakhaven has a Tax and has NO Transit Expansion. Therefore, based on the chain established in Step 2, Oakhaven MUST experience a Revenue Decline.
Applying a valid general rule to a specific instance that meets its sufficient conditions guarantees the outcome.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional logic and evaluating instances that meet sufficient conditions.
Soru 1211Soru →

Under the revised maritime salvage code, a claimant is entitled to a full recovery fee only if the recovered vessel was actively broadcasting a distress signal or the claimant can prove the vessel was abandoned for at least thirty days.

Consider this deduction: 'If a claimant cannot prove the vessel was abandoned for at least thirty days, or if the vessel was not actively broadcasting a distress signal, then the claimant is not entitled to a full recovery fee.'

Is this deduction logically valid based exclusively on the code provided?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False. The deduction is logically invalid due to an incorrect application of De Morgan's laws when forming the contrapositive.
The deduction is logically invalid. The original rule requires at least one of two conditions (broadcasting OR abandoned) to be true for the fee entitlement to be possible. To properly deduce that a claimant is NOT entitled to the fee via a contrapositive, BOTH conditions must be negated and joined by 'AND' (not broadcasting AND not abandoned). The provided statement incorrectly uses 'or', meaning a claimant who only failed one condition would erroneously lose the fee, contradicting the original rule.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conditional indicator and translate the original rule into formal logic.
Entitled to Fee -> (Broadcasting Signal OR Proved Abandoned).
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition. The condition itself is a compound statement joined by the word 'or'.
2
Formulate the correct contrapositive by negating both sides and reversing their order.
NOT (Broadcasting Signal OR Proved Abandoned) -> NOT Entitled to Fee.
A logically valid deduction via contrapositive requires negating the necessary condition to serve as the new sufficient condition.
3
Apply De Morgan's laws to simplify the negated necessary condition.
(NOT Broadcasting Signal AND NOT Proved Abandoned) -> NOT Entitled to Fee.
The negation of an 'OR' statement is an 'AND' statement. A claimant must fail BOTH conditions to guarantee the loss of the fee.
4
Compare the logically valid contrapositive to the deduction provided in the stem.
The provided deduction uses 'or' (fails condition A OR fails condition B) instead of 'and'.
Because the deduction concludes the fee is denied based on failing only one condition rather than failing both, it is an invalid deduction.

Anahtar Kavram

Forming Contrapositives with De Morgan's Laws
Soru 1212Soru →

Botanist: All commercial varieties of the *Amaranth* grain exhibit rapid stalk development. Most grain varieties that exhibit rapid stalk development are highly susceptible to stem rust. Interestingly, no grain varieties that contain the *K-22* genetic sequence are susceptible to stem rust. Yet, some commercial varieties of the *Amaranth* grain contain the *K-22* genetic sequence.

Based on the botanist's statements, which of the following must be true? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Some commercial varieties of the *Amaranth* grain are not highly susceptible to stem rust.; Some grain varieties that exhibit rapid stalk development are not highly susceptible to stem rust.

Cevap

The correct statements are that some commercial varieties of the Amaranth grain are not highly susceptible to stem rust, and some grain varieties that exhibit rapid stalk development are not highly susceptible to stem rust.
The correct statements rely on combining the 'some' and 'all/no' premises. Because some commercial Amaranth grains contain K-22, and K-22 guarantees resistance to stem rust, we can definitively say some commercial Amaranth grains are not susceptible. Furthermore, because all commercial Amaranth grains exhibit rapid stalk development, those resistant Amaranth grains also exhibit rapid stalk development, proving that some grain varieties with rapid stalk development are not susceptible.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the formal logic of the premises.
Premise 1: Commercial Amaranth (CA) → Rapid Stalk (RS). Premise 2: RS → (most) → Stem Rust Susceptible (S). Premise 3: K-22 → NOT S (~S). Premise 4: CA → (some) → K-22.
Diagramming the relationships ensures we do not conflate sufficient and necessary conditions, or overextend quantifiers like 'most' and 'some'.
2
Combine Premise 4 and Premise 3 to make a deduction.
Since some CA have K-22, and all things with K-22 are ~S, it must be true that some CA are ~S (Some commercial varieties of Amaranth are not susceptible to stem rust).
When a 'some' statement shares a term with the sufficient condition of an 'all' (or 'no') statement, a valid transitive deduction can be drawn.
3
Combine the deduction from Step 2 with Premise 1.
We know some CA have K-22 and are therefore ~S. We also know from Premise 1 that ALL CA have RS. Therefore, those specific CA that are ~S also have RS. This proves that some RS are ~S.
Applying an 'all' rule to an existing subgroup allows us to attribute the property of the 'all' rule to that specific subgroup.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining Conditional Statements with Mixed Quantifiers
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1213Soru →

If a soil sample contains high levels of manganese, then it is highly acidic. Furthermore, any soil that is highly acidic severely inhibits the growth of leguminous crops. However, agricultural surveys confirm that most soil samples from the Veridian region do not severely inhibit the growth of leguminous crops.

Which one of the following logically follows from the statements above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Most soil samples from the Veridian region do not contain high levels of manganese.

Cevap

Most soil samples from the Veridian region do not contain high levels of manganese.
The correct answer combines a transitive conditional chain with a contrapositive. The premises establish that High Manganese -> Highly Acidic, and Highly Acidic -> Inhibits Legumes. Linked together, High Manganese -> Inhibits Legumes. The contrapositive is that if soil Does NOT Inhibit Legumes -> NOT High Manganese. Because the stimulus states that MOST Veridian soil samples do not inhibit legumes, it logically follows that MOST Veridian soil samples do not contain high levels of manganese.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the first conditional premise.
High Manganese -> Highly Acidic
This establishes the sufficient condition (manganese) and necessary condition (acidity).
2
Diagram the second conditional premise and chain it with the first.
Highly Acidic -> Severely Inhibits Legumes. Therefore, High Manganese -> Severely Inhibits Legumes.
Transitive logic allows us to connect the first condition directly to the final necessary condition.
3
Form the contrapositive of the chained statement.
Does NOT Severely Inhibit Legumes -> NOT High Manganese.
In conditional logic, negating the necessary condition allows us to negate the sufficient condition.
4
Apply the quantifier from the final premise to the contrapositive.
Since 'most' Veridian samples do NOT severely inhibit legumes, 'most' Veridian samples must NOT have High Manganese.
Applying a 'most' statement to the sufficient condition of a valid conditional rule allows us to conclude 'most' for the necessary condition.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional statements, forming contrapositives, and combining them with quantity indicators (most).
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1214Soru →

Match each flawed argument (on the left) to the specific logical error regarding correlation and causation that it demonstrates (on the right).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

People who frequently visit the hospital are statistically more likely to have a severe illness. Therefore, going to the hospital causes people to become severely ill.
During the summer months, both the sale of sunglasses and the number of sunburns increase significantly. Therefore, buying sunglasses increases the risk of getting a sunburn.
Every time I wear my lucky blue shirt, our local sports team wins. My blue shirt is clearly the reason the team keeps winning.
A survey shows that adults who drink green tea regularly have a lower incidence of heart disease. Thus, drinking green tea directly prevents heart disease.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Hospital visits reverse cause and effect; sunglasses and sunburns share a third variable (weather); the lucky shirt is a pure coincidence; and the green tea survey assumes causation from a general statistical correlation.
Each argument represents a distinct variation of the Correlation vs. Causation flaw. By isolating the specific relationship between the premises and the conclusion, we can correctly categorize the error as reverse causation, a third-variable issue, coincidence, or a generic leap from correlation to causation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the hospital argument to determine the logical error.
Identify that the argument reverses cause and effect.
Illness causes people to visit the hospital, meaning the argument mistakes the effect (visiting the hospital) for the cause of the illness.
2
Analyze the sunglasses and sunburns argument.
Identify that the argument ignores a common cause.
Neither event causes the other. Both are independently caused by sunny summer weather, representing a 'third variable' flaw.
3
Analyze the lucky blue shirt argument.
Identify that the argument relies on mere coincidence.
There is no logical or physical way a shirt affects a game's outcome; the sequence is entirely coincidental.
4
Analyze the green tea survey argument.
Identify that the argument assumes a direct causal relationship based purely on a statistical association.
The survey only proves a correlation. The argument fails to rule out other variables (like generally healthier diets among green tea drinkers) before concluding direct causation.

Anahtar Kavram

Correlation vs. Causation
Soru 1215Soru →

Agricultural scientists are investigating the sudden, widespread failure of the Azure Melon crop in the northern valley. They initially considered four potential causes before systematically ruling them out to isolate the true factor. Match each proposed hypothesis for the crop failure with the specific piece of evidence that was used to logically eliminate it from consideration.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The crop failed due to a novel viral pathogen.
The failure resulted from severe soil nutrient depletion.
A widespread fungal root rot caused the crops to wither.
Unprecedented drought conditions prevented the melons from maturing.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Viral pathogen matches the absence of exogenous genetic material; soil depletion matches the robust nutrient assays; fungal root rot matches the intact subterranean vascular systems; and drought matches the above-average precipitation data.
In an argument by elimination, competing hypotheses are systematically ruled out by introducing specific premises that contradict a necessary condition of each hypothesis. Each correct pair perfectly matches a hypothesis with the unique piece of evidence that logically falsifies it.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the 'viral pathogen' hypothesis to identify its necessary conditions.
It requires the presence of a virus, which would leave foreign genetic material in the plant cells.
By identifying a necessary condition, we can find the specific evidence that falsifies it.
2
Analyze the 'soil nutrient depletion' hypothesis.
It requires the soil to lack essential elements for plant growth.
Finding evidence of robust concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus directly refutes this requirement.
3
Analyze the 'fungal root rot' hypothesis.
It requires damage or decay to the root structure.
Evidence showing completely intact subterranean vascular systems eliminates this possibility.
4
Analyze the 'drought' hypothesis.
It requires a severe shortage of water during the growing season.
Data confirming precipitation exceeded historical averages directly contradicts a drought.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Elimination
Soru 1216Soru →

Any employee at the agency who has access to the central server must either have completed Level 4 security training or be directly supervised by a senior director. However, no employee who is directly supervised by a senior director is authorized to initiate external data transfers. Every member of the analytics team frequently initiates external data transfers, and most members of the analytics team have access to the central server.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Most members of the analytics team have completed Level 4 security training.

Cevap

Most members of the analytics team have completed Level 4 security training.
The correct answer accurately synthesizes the overlapping premises. We know all analytics team members initiate transfers, meaning (by the contrapositive of the second rule) none of them are supervised by a senior director. We also know most analytics team members have central server access. Because anyone with server access MUST have either training or supervision, and we proved they lack supervision, this majority group MUST have the training.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the strict conditional statements provided in the stimulus.
1: Access Central Server → (Level 4 Training OR Supervised by Director). 2: Supervised by Director → CANNOT initiate external transfers. 3: Analytics Team Member → initiates external transfers.
Formalizing the rules is necessary to safely connect the logic without introducing assumptions.
2
Find the contrapositive of the second premise and chain it with the third premise.
Contrapositive of Premise 2: If an employee initiates external transfers, they are NOT supervised by a director. Chaining with Premise 3: Analytics Team Member → initiates transfers → NOT supervised by a director.
This establishes a definite negative fact about the entire analytics team: none of them have director supervision.
3
Evaluate the 'most' quantifier statement against the first premise.
The stimulus states: Most Analytics Team Members → have Access to Central Server. According to Premise 1, this majority must have either Level 4 Training OR Director Supervision.
This applies the mandatory 'either/or' requirement to a specific subset of employees (the majority of the analytics team).
4
Combine the deduction from Step 2 with the evaluation in Step 3.
Since NO analytics team member has Director Supervision (Step 2), the 'most' who have Central Server Access cannot rely on supervision to meet the requirement. Therefore, they MUST have Level 4 Training.
When an 'A OR B' condition is required, and 'B' is impossible, 'A' must be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional statements with contrapositives and applying them to quantifier logic (most) to force a deduction through a disjunction (or).
Soru 1217Soru →

All accredited zoological parks must maintain a full-time veterinary staff. Any facility that maintains a full-time veterinary staff allocates at least 20 percent of its operating budget to animal healthcare. Most facilities that allocate at least 20 percent of their operating budget to animal healthcare receive municipal grants.

Based strictly on the information above, the following statement must be true: Most accredited zoological parks receive municipal grants.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false because it commits a quantifier overreach error. While all accredited zoological parks allocate 20 percent to healthcare, they are merely a subset of such facilities. The fact that 'most' of these facilities receive grants does not guarantee that 'most' (or even any) of the zoological parks receive grants; they could logically belong to the minority that do not.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the formal logic of the absolute premises.
Accredited zoological parks (AZP) → Full-time veterinary staff (FTV). FTV → Allocates 20% (A20).
Establishing the core conditional relationships is necessary to evaluate deductive inferences.
2
Combine the absolute conditional statements.
AZP → A20 (All accredited zoological parks allocate at least 20 percent of their budget).
Transitive chains allow connecting the first and last terms of absolute statements.
3
Evaluate the interaction between the absolute chain and the quantifier ('most').
We know AZP is a subset of A20. The premise states 'Most A20 → Municipal grants (MG)'. However, we cannot logically deduce that most of the AZP subset are MG.
Quantifiers like 'most' do not guarantee proportionate representation across all subsets of a group. The subgroup might exclusively occupy the minority portion of the larger group.

Anahtar Kavram

Quantifier Overreach in Formal Logic
Soru 1218Soru →

Review the following arguments regarding urban planning and infrastructure. Which of the arguments commit a logical flaw by either confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition, or mistaking a sufficient condition for a necessary one? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Implementing a congestion pricing zone is required to achieve a significant reduction in downtown air pollution. The city has just voted to implement a congestion pricing zone, so we can confidently expect a significant reduction in downtown air pollution.; Any urban area that strictly enforces noise ordinances will see an immediate improvement in residents' reported sleep quality. The northern district lacks the resources to strictly enforce its noise ordinances. As a result, the northern district will not see an immediate improvement in residents' sleep quality.

Cevap

The arguments about the congestion pricing zone and the noise ordinances.
The correct selections are the two arguments that commit specific conditional reasoning flaws. The argument about the congestion pricing zone states that the zone is 'required' (a necessary condition) for reducing pollution, but then concludes that implementing it guarantees the reduction (treating it as sufficient). This is an illegal reversal. The argument about noise ordinances states that enforcing them guarantees better sleep (a sufficient condition), but then concludes that failing to enforce them guarantees sleep will not improve (treating it as necessary). This is an illegal negation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the prompt to identify the task.
The task requires identifying arguments that commit conditional reasoning flaws: illegal reversal (necessary confused for sufficient) and illegal negation (sufficient confused for necessary).
Clarifying the exact logical flaws targeted ensures we correctly distinguish between flawed conditionals, valid conditionals, and unrelated flaws.
2
Diagram and evaluate the conditional arguments to test for validity.
The congestion pricing argument diagrams as: Reduce Pollution -> Implement Zone. Premise: Implement Zone. Conclusion: Reduce Pollution. (Flawed). The noise ordinance argument diagrams as: Enforce Ordinances -> Improve Sleep. Premise: No Enforce Ordinances. Conclusion: No Improve Sleep. (Flawed).
Formal diagramming safely reveals whether an argument obeys the rules of sufficient and necessary conditions.
3
Evaluate the remaining arguments to classify their reasoning.
The street lighting argument uses valid contrapositive reasoning. The water drainage argument uses valid modus ponens. The public parks argument contains a causal flaw, not a conditional one.
Incorrect options must be eliminated either because they are logically valid or because they commit a different type of flaw entirely.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Soru 1219Soru →

Under the revised international pharmacopeia standards, any commercially distributed sedative derived from the Valeriana plant must undergo a proprietary alkalinization process. Undergoing the proprietary alkalinization process requires the use of specialized titanium-lined reactors. None of the sedatives manufactured by the firm Botanica-Med use specialized titanium-lined reactors, although some of the sedatives manufactured by Botanica-Med are currently authorized for pediatric use.

Based strictly on the information above, the following statement must be true: At least one sedative currently authorized for pediatric use is not a commercially distributed sedative derived from the Valeriana plant.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is logically guaranteed by linking the contrapositive of the required conditions with the existence of Botanica-Med's pediatric sedatives.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the conditional statements provided in the first two sentences.
Valeriana derivation → Alkalinization → Titanium reactors.
This establishes the necessary conditions for any commercially distributed sedative derived from the Valeriana plant.
2
Evaluate the information about Botanica-Med using the contrapositive of the logic chain.
Botanica-Med → NO Titanium reactors → NO Alkalinization → NOT a Valeriana derivation.
Since Botanica-Med products fail to meet a necessary condition (titanium reactors), they cannot possibly be Valeriana-derived sedatives.
3
Combine the deduction from Step 2 with the existential quantifier ('some') provided in the final sentence.
Some Botanica-Med sedatives are authorized for pediatric use. Since NO Botanica-Med sedatives are Valeriana derivations, some pediatric-authorized sedatives are NOT Valeriana derivations.
This proves the statement that at least one sedative currently authorized for pediatric use is not a commercially distributed sedative derived from the Valeriana plant.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional statements, forming contrapositives, and combining them with existential ('some') quantifiers to derive a guaranteed truth.
Soru 1220Soru →

Under the revised zoning laws of Oakhaven, any developer who constructs a high-density residential complex must secure a municipal waiver. Securing a municipal waiver requires the developer to allocate at least 20 percent of the units for low-income housing, unless the developer has received a historical preservation tax credit. However, no developer who receives a historical preservation tax credit is eligible to apply for the state urban revitalization grant. According to city records, every developer currently constructing a high-density residential complex in Oakhaven has been awarded the state urban revitalization grant.

Based on the information provided, it could be true that there is a developer currently constructing a high-density residential complex in Oakhaven who has not allocated at least 20 percent of the units for low-income housing.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The statement is false. It is logically impossible for a developer in this scenario to avoid allocating at least 20 percent of the units for low-income housing.
The correct evaluation is false. The stimulus establishes that every developer constructing a high-density residential complex has the state urban revitalization grant. Because having a historical preservation tax credit precludes a developer from receiving this grant, none of these current high-density developers have the historical tax credit. To secure the required municipal waiver without possessing the historical tax credit, a developer is strictly required by the 'unless' clause to allocate at least 20 percent of the units for low-income housing. Therefore, the scenario described in the statement is a logical impossibility.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first and final premises regarding high-density developers.
High-Density -> Municipal Waiver, and High-Density -> Revitalization Grant.
To establish the baseline mandatory conditions for all developers currently building high-density complexes.
2
Translate the exclusionary premise and apply its contrapositive.
Historical Credit -> NOT Revitalization Grant. Contrapositive: Revitalization Grant -> NOT Historical Credit.
To connect the developers' known grant status to their eligibility for the tax credit.
3
Translate the 'unless' conditional regarding the municipal waiver.
Municipal Waiver -> Low-Income Allocation OR Historical Credit. This is logically equivalent to: If NOT Historical Credit, then Low-Income Allocation must be met.
'Unless' introduces a necessary condition that must be fulfilled if the alternative condition is absent.
4
Chain the deductions together to determine what must be true.
High-Density developers have the Revitalization Grant. Therefore, they do NOT have the Historical Credit. Because they must have a Municipal Waiver and lack the Historical Credit, they MUST provide the Low-Income Allocation.
To form a complete deductive chain proving that High-Density -> Low-Income Allocation.
5
Evaluate the given statement against the deduced rule.
The statement claims a high-density developer could fail to provide the low-income allocation. Since we proved they absolutely must provide it, the statement describes a scenario that cannot be true, making the statement false.
To answer the prompt based on strict logical necessity.

Anahtar Kavram

Formal logic chaining, contrapositives, and the precise interpretation of 'unless' in conditional statements.
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
ÖncekiSayfa 61 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin