Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 1281Soru →

In Logical Reasoning, the Negation Technique is used to test whether an assumption is truly necessary for an argument to hold. This technique requires accurately forming the logical negation of a candidate assumption statement. Match each assumption statement below with its exact logical negation.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

All successful entrepreneurs are risk-takers.
Some new tax policies are beneficial.
No seasoned investors ignore market trends.
If the interest rate rises, inflation will decrease.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings are: 'All...' negates to 'At least one... is not...'; 'Some...' negates to 'No...'; 'No...' negates to 'At least one... is...'; and 'If A, then B' negates to 'A happens and B does not'.
Each assumption statement has been paired with its exact logical contradictory. A mathematically sound negation covers all remaining logical possibilities without going too far. For example, the negation of an 'all' claim simply requires one counterexample, and the negation of a conditional claim shows the sufficient condition occurring without the necessary condition.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the quantifier or logical structure in the first statement: 'All successful entrepreneurs...'
It is a universal affirmative. The exact logical negation is 'Not all' or 'At least one is not'. Match with 'At least one successful entrepreneur is not a risk-taker.'
Negating 'All' does not mean 'None'; it merely requires a single counterexample to make the original statement false.
2
Identify the quantifier in the second statement: 'Some new tax policies...'
It is an existential affirmative. The exact logical negation is 'None'. Match with 'No new tax policies are beneficial.'
If it is false that 'some' (at least one) policy is beneficial, then zero policies are beneficial.
3
Identify the quantifier in the third statement: 'No seasoned investors...'
It is a universal negative. The exact logical negation is 'Some' or 'At least one'. Match with 'At least one seasoned investor ignores market trends.'
If it is false that 'no one' does something, it must mean that at least one person does it.
4
Identify the logical structure of the fourth statement: 'If the interest rate rises...'
It is a conditional statement. The exact logical negation is that the trigger happens but the result does not. Match with 'The interest rate rises, and inflation does not decrease.'
A conditional statement is only violated when the sufficient condition (the 'if' clause) is met, but the necessary condition (the 'then' clause) fails to occur.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical negation involves producing a statement that must be false when the original is true, and must be true when the original is false, without overreaching.
Soru 1282Soru →

City Planner: In order to significantly reduce the severe traffic congestion in our downtown commercial district, the municipal government should construct a new high-capacity bypass highway on the western outskirts of the city. Recent engineering studies demonstrate that this proposed bypass highway is designed to handle up to 20,000 vehicles per day. This capacity perfectly matches the estimated volume of excess commuter traffic that is currently clogging the main downtown routes during peak hours.

Statement: To properly evaluate the city planner's argument, it is necessary to determine whether the commuters currently traveling through the downtown district would actually choose to alter their routes to use the new western bypass highway.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement accurately identifies the crux of the argument. The city planner assumes that because the road can hold the cars, the cars will drive on it. Knowing whether commuters will actually change their driving habits is essential to evaluating if the plan to reduce congestion will succeed.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that building the western bypass highway will significantly reduce downtown traffic congestion.
Evaluating an argument requires first isolating the main claim or proposed plan.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premises state that the bypass can handle 20,000 vehicles daily, which equals the current excess downtown traffic volume.
Understanding the evidence is necessary to see how the author attempts to support the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap or assumption.
The argument assumes that having the capacity for 20,000 vehicles means 20,000 vehicles will actually use it instead of their current route.
Arguments often rely on unstated assumptions that bridge the gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
4
Apply the Variance Test to the provided statement.
If commuters do alter their routes (Yes), the argument is strengthened. If they refuse to alter their routes (No), the argument falls apart. Thus, the statement is true.
The Variance Test definitively identifies whether a piece of information is critical for evaluating the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Variance Test to identify the core assumption of a proposed plan.
Soru 1283Soru →

Under current legal frameworks, a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) can be held legally liable for damages only if it features either a central executive committee or a pre-coded compensation fund. The Aetherium Network is a DAO that was recently held legally liable for damages by a federal court. However, an exhaustive audit of the network's architecture proves that it lacks any pre-coded compensation fund. Therefore, it is clear that the Aetherium Network must utilize a weighted-voting governance protocol.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any decentralized autonomous organization that possesses a central executive committee utilizes a weighted-voting governance protocol.

Cevap

The option stating that any decentralized autonomous organization possessing a central executive committee utilizes a weighted-voting governance protocol.
The argument establishes an intermediate conclusion: because the DAO is liable and lacks a compensation fund, it MUST have a central executive committee. However, the author suddenly concludes the DAO has a weighted-voting protocol. To justify this leap, we need a rule stating that having a central executive committee guarantees the use of a weighted-voting protocol. The correct answer provides exactly this universal conditional link.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional rule provided in the first sentence.
Rule: If a DAO is legally liable, it must have a Central Executive Committee (CEC) OR a Pre-coded Compensation Fund (PCF).
Identifying the formal logic relationships is the first step in deduction.
2
Apply the facts about the Aetherium Network to the conditional rule.
Fact 1: Aetherium is legally liable. Deduction: Aetherium has a CEC or a PCF. Fact 2: Aetherium lacks a PCF. Deduction: Aetherium MUST have a CEC.
This establishes an unstated intermediate conclusion that is critical to the argument.
3
Identify the argument's final conclusion and the logical gap.
Conclusion: Aetherium utilizes a weighted-voting governance protocol (WVGP). The gap is between the intermediate conclusion (Aetherium has a CEC) and the final conclusion (Aetherium has a WVGP).
To find a sufficient assumption, you must pinpoint exactly where the author's logic jumps to an unsupported claim.
4
Formulate the sufficient assumption that bridges the gap.
Required Assumption: If a DAO has a CEC, then it utilizes a WVGP (CEC -> WVGP).
Connecting the established fact (CEC) to the unsupported conclusion (WVGP) logically forces the conclusion to be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate conclusions to find the missing sufficient condition that logically guarantees the final conclusion.
Soru 1284Soru →

City official: The newly constructed eastern bypass road will significantly reduce the severe traffic congestion currently experienced on Main Street. This is because the bypass will finally provide a more direct, faster route for heavy commercial trucks traveling between the industrial park and the interstate highway, meaning these vehicles will no longer need to drive through the city center.

The city official's argument relies on the assumption that commercial trucks currently contribute to the traffic congestion on Main Street.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The argument necessarily relies on this assumption.
The proposed statement is indeed a necessary assumption for the argument. The argument leaps from the premise that trucks will be removed from Main Street to the conclusion that congestion will be significantly reduced. For this reasoning to work, it is absolutely necessary that those trucks were a contributing factor to the congestion in the first place. If we negate the statement (assume trucks do NOT contribute to the congestion), the conclusion that removing them will reduce congestion falls apart. Therefore, the argument depends on this assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the new bypass road will significantly reduce traffic congestion on Main Street.
Understanding the main point is required to evaluate what must be true for the argument's outcome to hold.
2
Identify the supporting premise.
The premise is that commercial trucks will use the new bypass instead of driving through the city center.
The premise provides the specific evidence or mechanism meant to guarantee the conclusion.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed assumption.
Negated assumption: Commercial trucks do NOT currently contribute to the traffic congestion on Main Street.
The Negation Test is the definitive method to determine if an assumption is strictly necessary.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated assumption on the argument's logic.
If trucks do not contribute to the congestion, then removing them will not significantly reduce the congestion, which completely destroys the conclusion.
Because negating the statement destroys the argument, the statement is a logically necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Test to identify necessary bridge assumptions between premises and conclusions.
Soru 1285Soru →

Environmental Advocate: The proposed multinational treaty to permit deep-sea mining should be rejected immediately. Dr. Aris Thorne, the world’s preeminent marine biologist and leading authority on abyssal plain ecosystems, recently testified that the short-term revenue generated by deep-sea mining will inevitably be overshadowed by the long-term financial collapse of global fisheries. Since no single individual possesses a deeper understanding of the ocean's intricate ecosystems than Dr. Thorne, we must accept his conclusion that deep-sea mining is a disastrous economic strategy.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the environmental advocate's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: relies on the judgment of an expert in a matter that falls outside the boundaries of that expert's established competence

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating the argument relies on the judgment of an expert in a matter that falls outside the boundaries of that expert's established competence.
The argument concludes that deep-sea mining is a 'disastrous economic strategy' based entirely on the testimony of Dr. Thorne. The author justifies relying on Dr. Thorne by citing his unparalleled expertise as a 'marine biologist' and his understanding of 'intricate ecosystems.' However, expertise in marine biology does not translate to expertise in global economics or financial forecasting. Therefore, the argument is flawed because it relies on the judgment of an expert (Dr. Thorne) in a field (economics) that is outside his established area of competence (biology).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
The conclusion is that deep-sea mining is a 'disastrous economic strategy'.
This is the final claim the advocate is trying to prove, indicated by 'we must accept his conclusion that...'.
2
Identify the primary premise supporting this conclusion.
The premise is that Dr. Thorne, a 'preeminent marine biologist' and expert on 'intricate ecosystems', claims the long-term financial costs will outweigh short-term revenues.
The author explicitly justifies the conclusion by appealing to Dr. Thorne's unparalleled understanding of the ocean's ecosystems.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the premise and the conclusion to find the logical gap.
There is a mismatch between the expert's credentials and the nature of the claim. Dr. Thorne's expertise is in biology, but the claim he is making (and that the author accepts) is about economics and finance.
To identify a flaw in reasoning, one must look for why the premises do not logically guarantee the conclusion.
4
Select the option that matches this logical gap.
The argument commits an appeal to an unqualified authority.
Trusting an expert's opinion on a subject outside their field is a classic logical fallacy.

Anahtar Kavram

Appeal Fallacies (Unqualified Authority)
Soru 1286Soru →

Botanist: Ghost orchid seeds require a specific soil fungus to germinate. In Silverwood Forest, this fungus is found exclusively in the decomposing bark of fallen elder-pine trees. Therefore, the new forest management policy, which mandates the removal of all fallen elder-pine trees from Silverwood to reduce wildfire risk, will inevitably cause the forest's ghost orchid population to decline.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The ghost orchid population in Silverwood Forest cannot maintain its current numbers solely through reproductive methods that do not involve seed germination.

Cevap

The ghost orchid population in Silverwood Forest cannot maintain its current numbers solely through reproductive methods that do not involve seed germination.
The argument concludes that removing fallen elder-pine trees will inevitably cause the ghost orchid population to decline. This relies on the premise that the seeds require a fungus found only on these fallen trees. However, if the orchids can reproduce effectively without seeds (e.g., vegetatively), the population might not decline. Therefore, the argument must assume that the orchids cannot maintain their numbers solely through non-seed methods.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the argument.
Conclusion: The policy to remove fallen elder-pine trees will inevitably cause the ghost orchid population to decline. Premises: Ghost orchid seeds require a specific fungus to germinate, and this fungus is found exclusively on the decomposing bark of fallen elder-pine trees.
Deconstructing the argument structure is the essential first step in identifying any logical gaps.
2
Find the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises establish that seed germination will be halted. The conclusion claims the entire population will inevitably decline. The gap is the assumption that seed germination is strictly necessary to maintain the population size.
A valid argument must have no gaps between the provided evidence and the final claim.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the potential assumption.
Negating the correct statement yields: 'The ghost orchid population CAN maintain its current numbers solely through reproductive methods that do not involve seed germination.' If this is true, the loss of seed germination would not cause a population decline, destroying the argument.
The Negation Test is the definitive way to prove if an assumption is truly necessary for an argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Test
Soru 1287Soru →

The new administrative software update reduces the time it takes for employees to process customer requests by 20 percent. Therefore, the company should mandate that all employees install the new software update immediately.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A company should mandate the installation of any software update that reduces the time it takes to process customer requests.

Cevap

The principle stating that a company should mandate the installation of any software update that reduces the time it takes to process customer requests.
The correct answer acts as a perfect logical bridge between the evidence and the conclusion. By stating that ANY software update reducing processing time should be mandated, it triggers directly off the stated premise to absolutely guarantee the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premise.
Premise: The new software update reduces the time it takes for employees to process customer requests.
Understanding the evidence provided is the first step in analyzing the argument structure.
2
Identify the argument's conclusion.
Conclusion: The company should mandate that all employees install the update immediately.
The conclusion is the destination that the premise must logically reach.
3
Identify the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
Gap: The argument assumes that simply because an update reduces processing time, the company is justified in mandating it.
To justify the conclusion, we need a rule that perfectly bridges this gap.
4
Select the conditional principle that connects the premise to the conclusion.
The correct principle must be: 'If an update reduces processing time (premise), then the company should mandate its installation (conclusion).'
This 'If Premise, then Conclusion' structure logically guarantees the outcome, fulfilling the 'Justify' question task.

Anahtar Kavram

Principle - Justify: Bridging Premise to Conclusion

Alternatif Yöntem

You can visualize this as a math equation: Premise + Principle = Conclusion. Here, (Reduces Time) + (If Reduces Time -> Mandate) = (Mandate).
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 1288Soru →

University Administrator: Ten years ago, 15 percent of the enrolled students at our university were majoring in the humanities. This year, only 10 percent of our enrolled students are majoring in the humanities. Therefore, the actual number of humanities majors on campus today must be lower than it was ten years ago.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the flaw in the administrator's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: presumes, without providing justification, that a decrease in a proportion necessarily indicates a decrease in a total quantity

Cevap

The correct answer identifies that the argument mistakenly assumes a drop in percentage guarantees a drop in the absolute number of students.
The argument commits a classic percentages-versus-numbers fallacy. It uses evidence about a declining percentage (from 15 percent to 10 percent) to draw a conclusion about a declining absolute number. This reasoning is flawed because it fails to account for the total size of the university's student body. If the total number of enrolled students has increased substantially over the last ten years, the actual number of humanities majors could have increased even as their proportional share of the student body decreased.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises of the argument.
Ten years ago, humanities majors made up 15 percent of the student body. Today, they make up 10 percent.
Understanding the evidence provided is the first step in evaluating an argument's validity.
2
Identify the main conclusion.
The actual number of humanities majors today is lower than it was ten years ago.
Isolating the conclusion shows what the author is trying to prove.
3
Compare the evidence to the conclusion to find the gap.
The evidence is entirely in percentages (proportions), but the conclusion makes a claim about actual numbers (absolute quantities).
This mismatch between the type of evidence and the type of conclusion is the core of the logical flaw.
4
Evaluate why the gap makes the argument vulnerable.
To calculate the actual number of humanities majors, one needs both the percentage AND the total number of enrolled students. If the total university enrollment grew drastically over ten years, 10 percent of today's large student body could be a greater actual number than 15 percent of the smaller student body from ten years ago.
This proves that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Percentages vs. Numbers Flaws
Soru 1289Soru →

Match each argument (stimulus) with the supporter assumption that is necessary to bridge the logical gap between its premise and its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The proposed community center will feature state-of-the-art recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed community center will improve the overall health of the neighborhood.
The author's latest book employs a highly unconventional narrative structure. Thus, the author's latest book will be praised by literary critics.
The new manufacturing process reduces the use of synthetic chemicals by half. Consequently, the new manufacturing process is better for the local environment.
The company's customer service hotline is now available 24 hours a day. As a result, the company's customer retention rate will significantly increase.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Pair the community center argument with the health assumption, the author's book argument with the literary critics assumption, the manufacturing process argument with the environment assumption, and the hotline argument with the retention assumption.
In each case, the correct assumption functions as a required bridge that connects the new 'rogue' term in the conclusion back to the evidence provided in the premise. Without these bridges, the conclusions remain completely unsupported.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premise and the conclusion in each argument.
Each argument contains a premise (evidence) and a conclusion that introduces a new, unstated concept known as the 'rogue' element.
Finding the new concept in the conclusion is the first step in identifying a missing supporter assumption.
2
Determine the exact logical gap for each argument.
The gaps are: recreational facilities to health, unconventional structure to critic praise, fewer synthetic chemicals to better environment, and 24-hour hotline to higher retention.
A supporter assumption must explicitly connect the evidence in the premise to the new claim in the conclusion.
3
Select the assumption that links the premise concept directly to the conclusion concept.
The matching assumptions form direct 'If Premise, then Conclusion' bridges.
This completes the logical structure, validating each argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions
Soru 1290Soru →

The university has announced that any student who completes the advanced research seminar will be awarded a special graduation commendation. Therefore, we can be certain that every student majoring in history will be awarded this special graduation commendation.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Every student majoring in history completes the advanced research seminar.

Cevap

The option stating that every student majoring in history completes the advanced research seminar.
The argument establishes a conditional rule in the premise: If a student takes the seminar, then they receive the commendation. The conclusion attempts to state: If a student is a history major, then they receive the commendation. To make this conclusion 100% logically valid, we must bridge the gap between being a history major and taking the seminar. The correct answer provides this exact bridge: If a student is a history major, then they take the seminar. This creates a perfect deductive chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core premise and main conclusion.
Premise: Completing the seminar guarantees the commendation. Conclusion: Majoring in history guarantees the commendation.
Isolating the formal structure of the argument is necessary to spot the missing logical link.
2
Determine the gap in the reasoning.
The argument jumps from the condition of 'majoring in history' to the trigger of 'completing the seminar' without connecting them.
The conclusion introduces a new group (history majors) that must be directly linked to the premise's trigger condition (completing the seminar).
3
Formulate the missing sufficient assumption.
The required assumption is that all history majors complete the advanced research seminar.
If all history majors take the seminar, and taking the seminar guarantees the commendation, then all history majors are mathematically guaranteed to receive the commendation.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption (Formal Logic Bridge)
Soru 1291Soru →

A linguist is arguing that a newly discovered dialect should be classified as a distinct language. The linguist's initial premise is that 'the new dialect shifts the core phonetic boundaries of the original language.' The final conclusion is that 'the new dialect must be classified as a distinct language.'

To make this argument logically valid, a series of sufficient assumptions must be added to form a complete deductive chain. Arrange the following assumptions in the correct logical sequence so that each statement's sufficient condition is established by the necessary condition of the previous step (or the initial premise), ultimately guaranteeing the final conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence logically chains from the initial premise to the final conclusion by matching each sufficient condition to the preceding necessary condition: Shifting phonetic boundaries -> Prevents mutual intelligibility -> Disrupts cultural transmission -> Fails to preserve identity -> Classified as a distinct language.
The correct logical order effectively maps out a sequence of conditional statements forming a transitive formal logic bridge (A -> B, B -> C, C -> D, D -> E). When placed in this exact sequence, these statements form a complete deductive bridge that perfectly justifies the final conclusion that the dialect must be classified as a distinct language.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the starting premise and final conclusion.
Premise: shifts phonetic boundaries. Conclusion: classified as distinct language.
Establishing the endpoints is required to construct a valid deductive chain.
2
Find the assumption that connects directly to the initial premise.
The statement 'Any dialect that shifts the core phonetic boundaries...' takes the premise and yields 'prevents mutual intelligibility'.
This is the only statement whose sufficient condition matches the given starting point.
3
Chain the subsequent statements by matching necessary conditions to sufficient conditions.
Prevents mutual intelligibility -> Disrupts cultural transmission. Then, Disrupts cultural transmission -> Fails to preserve identity.
Valid formal logic requires transitivity (If A then B, if B then C, if C then D).
4
Ensure the final necessary condition matches the final conclusion.
The statement 'Any dialect that fails to preserve the fundamental identity... must be classified as a distinct language' closes the gap.
This completes the sufficient assumption chain, strictly guaranteeing the truth of the argument's conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging formal logic gaps using a chain of sufficient assumptions (transitive property of conditionals).
Soru 1292Soru →

Read the following argument and evaluate the subsequent statement.

Historian: During the 1880s, the National Telegraph Company's adoption of the duplex telegraph system—which permitted simultaneous bidirectional transmission—coincided with a 30 percent reduction in garbled dispatches. Clearly, the continuous electrical current required by the duplex system actively suppressed the ambient magnetic interference that typically causes signal degradation.

Statement: A necessary assumption of the historian's argument is that the installation of the duplex telegraph system did not simultaneously require replacing the company's existing unshielded wires with heavily insulated cables.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is True because it correctly identifies a necessary defender assumption. The argument claims a specific mechanism (continuous current) caused a specific result (suppressed interference). To defend this precise causal claim against alternative causes, the argument must assume that no other interference-suppressing mechanism—such as heavily insulated cables—was introduced at the exact same time.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure and causal claim.
Premise: Adoption of the duplex system coincided with fewer errors. Conclusion: The continuous electrical current of the duplex system suppressed magnetic interference.
Understanding the exact mechanism the author credits (the continuous current) is essential for identifying vulnerabilities in the reasoning.
2
Identify the logical gap.
The argument assumes that a correlation (duplex installation and error reduction) implies a very specific causation, ignoring other factors that might have been introduced during the installation process.
Causal arguments based on correlation are inherently vulnerable to alternate explanations, requiring 'defender' assumptions to rule them out.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the provided statement.
Negated statement: The installation of the duplex telegraph system DID simultaneously require replacing the company's existing unshielded wires with heavily insulated cables.
The Negation Technique is the definitive logical test for necessary assumptions on the LSAT.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the conclusion.
If heavily insulated cables were installed simultaneously, the physical insulation provides a superior alternative explanation for the suppression of magnetic interference, thereby destroying the historian's claim that the continuous current was responsible.
A statement whose logical opposite destroys the argument is, by definition, a logically necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions) and the Negation Technique
Soru 1293Soru →

Analyze each of the following logical arguments. Match each argument to the specific sufficient assumption that, if added to its premises, strictly and logically guarantees the truth of its main conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The city council's controversial proposal to ban heavy commercial vehicles in the downtown district will drastically reduce peak-hour traffic congestion. Transportation analysts agree that if traffic congestion is drastically reduced in this manner, overall pedestrian safety will reach historically high levels. Therefore, implementing this proposal ensures that the downtown district will soon experience a significant surge in retail business.
The company's regional branch offices will definitively not be consolidated. After all, the board of directors will approve the highly anticipated corporate merger only if the external auditor's financial forecast predicts significant quarterly growth for the upcoming fiscal year. The recently released financial forecast by the external auditors explicitly does not predict such growth.
Most academic historians who study ancient agrarian societies focus primarily on calculating fluctuating agricultural yields. It is therefore certain that at least some historians who study ancient agrarian societies completely overlook the economic importance of early trade networks. This follows because sociological research demonstrates that some scholars who focus primarily on agricultural yields completely overlook this broader economic importance.
Extensive laboratory testing has demonstrated that reducing oxidative stress generally promotes long-term cellular longevity in mice. Administering a diet rich in synthetic antioxidants effectively reduces oxidative stress in these subjects, but it concurrently inhibits the natural production of critical enzymes regulating basic cellular metabolism. Therefore, feeding laboratory mice a diet rich in synthetic antioxidants will ultimately decrease their overall lifespans.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The public policy argument matches with the safety-to-retail bridge. The corporate merger argument matches with the requirement of board approval for consolidation. The historian argument matches with the universal 'every scholar' claim. The laboratory mice argument matches with the assumption that enzyme inhibition overrides longevity benefits.
The correct matches successfully pair each flawed stimulus with the exact sufficient assumption needed to repair its logic. This involves identifying unstated links between intermediate and main conclusions, tracing formal contrapositives, securing universal quantifier bridges, and establishing definitive dominance in competing causal scenarios.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the intermediate-to-main gap in the public policy argument regarding traffic.
The argument establishes that banning vehicles leads to pedestrian safety. It concludes this leads to a retail surge. The required gap is 'Pedestrian Safety -> Retail Surge'.
To guarantee the final conclusion, the established intermediate conclusion must be sufficient to trigger the main conclusion.
2
Diagram the conditional logic in the corporate merger argument.
Premises dictate: Approve -> Growth, and ~Growth. Inference: ~Approve. Conclusion: ~Consolidate. The required assumption to bridge the inference and conclusion is ~Approve -> ~Consolidate, or its contrapositive: Consolidate -> Approve.
Sufficient assumptions must formally close the deductive chain from the derived inference directly to the stated conclusion.
3
Evaluate the quantifier overlap in the historical sociology argument.
The premises 'Most A are B' and 'Some B are C' do not guarantee 'Some A are C'. Upgrading the 'Some' to 'All B are C' creates a valid Most + All = Most deduction, ensuring the 'Some' conclusion.
In formal logic, two non-universal quantifiers cannot establish a definitive bridge. A universal 'All' statement is required to guarantee the overlap.
4
Resolve the competing causal vectors in the biological testing argument.
The diet causes both longevity promotion and enzyme inhibition. To definitively conclude a decreased lifespan, the enzyme inhibition must universally cause lifespan reduction and override any longevity benefits.
Without establishing the absolute dominance of the negative causal pathway, the conclusion of an overall decreased lifespan remains merely probable, not logically guaranteed.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the precise logical gap in an argument's deductive structure and selecting the premise that renders the conclusion 100% valid.
Soru 1294Soru →

Industry Analyst: The widespread adoption of remote work over the last three years has caused a significant drop in the sales and profitability of formal business attire. Consequently, the recent decline in the overall profit margins of the retail clothing sector is a direct result of this transition to remote work.

For the analyst's conclusion to be properly drawn, it is necessary to assume that the transition to remote work did not generate a surge in casual clothing profits that completely offset the losses from formal business attire.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement accurately identifies a necessary assumption. By ruling out an offsetting factor (an increase in casual clothing profits), this 'defender' assumption protects the causal link between remote work and the overall sector decline.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument, distinguishing between the premise and the conclusion.
Premise: Remote work caused a drop in formal attire profits. Conclusion: The overall profit decline in the retail clothing sector is a direct result of remote work.
Understanding the structural relationship between the specific evidence provided and the broader claim is required.
2
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed assumption.
Negated assumption: The transition to remote work DID generate a surge in casual clothing profits that completely offset the losses from formal business attire.
A logically necessary assumption is one that, if proven false, destroys the argument's conclusion.
3
Evaluate the impact of the negated assumption on the conclusion.
If remote work's positive impact on casual clothing profits canceled out its negative impact on formal attire profits, then remote work cannot be the cause of the OVERALL decline in the sector's profit margins.
Since the negated assumption invalidates the conclusion, the original assumption is strictly necessary.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Test to identify defender assumptions that rule out alternate causes or offsetting factors.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1295Soru →

Consider the following argument:

'An independent consumer advocacy group sought to determine the reliability of the newly released Zephyr X-series washing machines. They mailed satisfaction questionnaires to 10,000 people who had purchased a Zephyr X-series machine within the last six months. Of the 1,500 people who returned the questionnaire, nearly 90 percent reported experiencing at least one major mechanical failure. Based on this data, the group concluded that the Zephyr X-series is highly unreliable.'

The primary logical flaw in this argument is that it draws a broad conclusion from a sample size (1,500 respondents) that is statistically too small to represent the experiences of all purchasers.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false because it misidentifies the methodological flaw. The argument's weakness is not the size of the sample, but its unrepresentative nature. People who experience mechanical failures are disproportionately more motivated to return a satisfaction questionnaire than those whose machines function perfectly. This creates a voluntary response bias. A sample of 1,500 is statistically large enough to form a generalization if the sample is randomly selected and representative, so sample size is not the logical flaw here.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's premise and conclusion.
Premise: 90% of the 1,500 returned surveys reported a major failure. Conclusion: The washing machines are highly unreliable.
Identifying the core argument structure is necessary to evaluate its logical validity.
2
Examine the data collection methodology.
Questionnaires were mailed to 10,000 people, and 1,500 independently chose to return them.
Understanding how the sample was gathered reveals potential methodological biases.
3
Evaluate the statement's claim about the logical flaw.
The statement claims the primary flaw is a sample size that is statistically too small.
To determine if the provided statement correctly identifies the methodological error in the text.
4
Compare the claim against logical principles of sampling.
A sample size of 1,500 is mathematically large enough for statistical significance. The actual flaw is self-selection bias, as angry customers are highly motivated to respond.
To reach the final evaluation that the statement misidentifies the true sampling flaw.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing between inadequate sample size and unrepresentative sample bias (voluntary response bias).
Soru 1296Soru →

A manufacturer of various athletic equipment recently released a premium line of smart treadmills. To assess overall customer satisfaction with the manufacturer's entire range of products, the company emailed a survey exclusively to customers who had registered the new smart treadmills for warranty purposes. Over 95 percent of the respondents reported being extremely satisfied with their purchase. Based on this, the company's executive team concluded that nearly all of their customers are highly satisfied with the brand.

The reasoning in the executive team's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: draws a broad conclusion about the manufacturer's entire customer base from a sample that is unlikely to be representative of that group

Cevap

The argument draws a broad conclusion about the manufacturer's entire customer base from a sample that is unlikely to be representative of that group.
The correct answer accurately points out that the survey respondents (buyers of a specific premium treadmill who registered for a warranty) do not accurately represent the target population of the conclusion (all customers of the manufacturer's various athletic equipment). People buying premium products might have a different experience than those buying standard products, and those who bother to register for warranties might be more invested in the brand than the average consumer.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that 'nearly all of their customers are highly satisfied with the brand.'
This is the final claim that the author is trying to prove using the survey data.
2
Identify the premises (evidence) provided to support the conclusion.
The evidence is that over 95% of customers who bought the new premium smart treadmills and registered them for warranty reported being extremely satisfied.
Understanding the evidence is necessary to see if it adequately supports the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the premises and the conclusion to find the logical gap.
The conclusion is about ALL customers who buy ANY athletic equipment from the manufacturer. The evidence is only about a specific subgroup: those who bought premium treadmills AND registered for a warranty.
Finding the mismatch in scope between the evidence and the conclusion reveals the flaw.
4
Determine the type of flaw occurring.
Because the subgroup surveyed is not representative of the broader population in the conclusion, this is a Sampling and Survey Flaw.
Matching the logical gap to a known LSAT flaw category makes it easier to find the correct answer choice.

Anahtar Kavram

Sampling Flaw - Unrepresentative Sample
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1297Soru →

Literary Critic: In her latest novel, every individual chapter ends with a definitive resolution to the conflicts introduced within that specific chapter. Therefore, the novel as a whole must provide readers with a definitive resolution to its overarching narrative.

Which one of the following arguments contains a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to the one exhibited by the literary critic's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Every single component used in the assembly of this industrial printing press is remarkably lightweight. Therefore, the printing press as a whole must be remarkably lightweight.

Cevap

The argument concluding that an industrial printing press must be remarkably lightweight because every single component used in its assembly is remarkably lightweight.
The critic's argument exhibits a part-to-whole composition fallacy by assuming that because every individual part (the chapters) has a specific characteristic (ending with a definitive resolution), the entire entity (the novel) must also possess that exact same characteristic. The correct option identically matches this flawed structure by erroneously concluding that because every individual part of a machine (the components) is remarkably lightweight, the entire machine (the assembled printing press) must also be remarkably lightweight, completely ignoring the fact that a large quantity of lightweight parts will combine to create a heavy whole.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the literary critic's argument.
Premise: Every individual part (chapter) has property X (definitive resolution). Conclusion: The whole entity (the novel) has property X (definitive resolution).
Identifying the core premise and conclusion is necessary to abstract the logical pattern.
2
Identify the specific logical flaw in the critic's reasoning.
The argument commits the Fallacy of Composition (Part-to-Whole).
It erroneously assumes that what is true of the individual components must inherently be true of the collective whole.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find the argument that strictly follows this Part-to-Whole flawed structure.
The argument concerning the industrial printing press matches this structure perfectly.
It takes a property of the individual parts (components being remarkably lightweight) and invalidly concludes that the whole (the assembled printing press) must share that exact property, ignoring that many lightweight parts can create a very heavy whole.

Anahtar Kavram

Fallacy of Composition (Part to Whole)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1298Soru →

In Logical Reasoning, a 'Defender Assumption' is a necessary assumption that protects a causal conclusion by ruling out a specific alternative explanation or vulnerability. Match each causal argument and its corresponding objection (Left) to the precise defender assumption (Right) that the argument MUST make to survive the objection.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Argument: A pharmaceutical study concludes that Drug X accelerates recovery from illness.
Objection: The study subjects taking Drug X were significantly younger and naturally healthier than the control group.
Argument: A city credits its new policing strategy for a 20% drop in crime.
Objection: A broader demographic aging of the city's population over the same period naturally reduced the population of at-risk youth.
Argument: An economist argues that offering high bonuses causes CEOs to achieve higher corporate profits.
Objection: Companies that are already highly profitable are simply the only ones that can afford to offer high bonuses.
Argument: A biologist concludes that a novel virus caused the rapid extinction of a local predator.
Objection: An unprecedented freeze eliminated the predator's sole food source right before the population collapsed.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct mappings uniquely pair each causal vulnerability with the defender assumption that directly negates it. The Drug X argument matches the assumption ruling out physiological resilience; the crime strategy argument matches the assumption ruling out demographic shifts; the corporate bonus argument matches the assumption ruling out pre-existing prosperity; and the predator extinction argument matches the assumption ruling out prey depletion.
Each correct pair links a specific vulnerability in a causal argument to the exact logical negation of that vulnerability. A defender assumption functions by bridging the gap created by an objection; it essentially states 'the alternative explanation raised by the objection is not true.'

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the pharmaceutical argument and its objection regarding selection bias.
Identify that the argument requires defending against the possibility that pre-existing health differences caused the recovery.
To maintain the conclusion that Drug X caused the recovery, the author must assume that the groups' baseline physiological differences did not independently account for the result.
2
Analyze the policing argument and its objection regarding a simultaneous demographic shift.
Identify that the argument requires defending against a third-variable confounder (an aging populace).
The author must assume the concurrent demographic aging was not the actual driver behind the 20% drop in illicit activity.
3
Analyze the corporate bonus argument and its objection regarding reverse causality.
Identify that the argument requires defending against the possibility that profitability causes high bonuses, rather than vice versa.
The author must assume that the pre-existing financial prosperity of a firm does not dictate its compensation levels, ruling out the reverse causal direction.
4
Analyze the predator extinction argument and its objection regarding an external macro-shock.
Identify that the argument requires defending against an alternate cause (loss of food supply).
The author must assume that the environmental depletion of the prey base was not the true catalyst for the extinction, thereby defending the virus hypothesis.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Soru 1299Soru →

Match each argumentative scenario with the universal principle that most helps to logically justify its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The new community center will provide a safe space for youth after school. Therefore, the town should fund its construction.
The proposed factory expansion will destroy a critical wetland habitat. Therefore, the environmental committee must veto the expansion.
The new crop variety requires significantly less water than traditional varieties. Therefore, the agricultural board should approve it for commercial farming.
The political candidate has a proven record of increasing voter turnout. Therefore, the political party ought to nominate her.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Each scenario must be matched with the principle that takes its specific premise as a sufficient condition to guarantee its specific conclusion.
In a Principle - Justify question, the correct principle functions as a sufficient premise that connects the specific evidence given to the specific conclusion drawn. By perfectly aligning the 'if' trigger of the principle with the scenario's premise, and the 'then' result of the principle with the scenario's conclusion, the argument becomes logically valid.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premise (the factual evidence) and the conclusion (the normative judgment or recommendation) in a given scenario.
Separation of the argument into 'Fact X is true' and 'Therefore, Action Y should happen'.
Justifying an argument requires understanding exactly what evidence is being used to support what claim.
2
Identify the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
Recognition that the scenario assumes, without stating, that Fact X is enough to require Action Y.
In Principle - Justify questions, arguments are formally invalid until a broad rule is applied to bridge the gap.
3
Select the principle that explicitly states 'If Fact X, then Action Y'.
The correct principle is matched to the scenario.
A sufficient principle guarantees the conclusion follows logically from the premises provided.

Anahtar Kavram

Principle - Justify
Soru 1300Soru →

Whenever a restaurant fails to maintain strict hygiene standards, it receives negative reviews from local food critics. The new seafood diner in town has consistently failed to maintain strict hygiene standards. Therefore, the new seafood diner will be forced to close down within the year.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any restaurant that receives negative reviews from local food critics will be forced to close down within the year.

Cevap

Any restaurant that receives negative reviews from local food critics will be forced to close down within the year.
The argument establishes that the diner will receive negative reviews, but then concludes it will be forced to close down. For this conclusion to logically follow, there must be a strict rule guaranteeing that receiving negative reviews leads to closing down. The correct option provides this exact necessary bridge, acting as a sufficient assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises and the main conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: Fails hygiene standards -> Negative reviews. Premise 2: Seafood diner -> Fails hygiene standards. Conclusion: Seafood diner -> Forced to close down.
Breaking down the argument into formal conditional logic helps isolate the missing link.
2
Determine the intermediate conclusion established by the premises.
Since the seafood diner fails hygiene standards, it will receive negative reviews (Seafood diner -> Negative reviews).
This connects the specific subject of the argument to the established conditional rule.
3
Identify the logical gap between the intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion.
The argument leaps from the fact that the diner will receive negative reviews to the claim that it will be forced to close down.
To make the conclusion follow logically, we need a conditional rule connecting 'negative reviews' to 'forced to close down'.
4
Formulate the necessary assumption to bridge this gap.
The correct assumption must state: If a restaurant receives negative reviews, it will be forced to close down (Negative reviews -> Forced to close down).
This completes the logical chain (A -> B, B -> C), guaranteeing the conclusion is true.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging gaps in conditional logic chains to justify a conclusion.
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
ÖncekiSayfa 65 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin