Examkin

Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Tüm türler3,960Çoktan seçmeli2,053Çoklu seçim382Doğru / Yanlış424Eşleştirme899Sıralama123Boşluk doldurma38Kısa cevap41
Soru 1301Soru →

Match each argument below with the sufficient assumption that logically guarantees its conclusion. Note that one assumption provided is an incorrect trap.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The proposed highway expansion will increase traffic flow. Thus, the expansion should be approved.
The recently discovered compound contains carbon. Thus, the compound is organic.
The new novel was written by a Nobel laureate. Thus, it will win the book of the year award.
The manufacturing plant uses solar power. Thus, the plant is environmentally friendly.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Highway expansion matches with 'increases traffic flow should be approved'; carbon compound matches with 'contain carbon are organic'; Nobel novel matches with 'written by a Nobel laureate will win'; solar plant matches with 'use solar power are environmentally friendly'.
Each correctly matched assumption follows the formal logic pattern: 'Premise -> Conclusion'. By establishing this universal rule, the fact provided in the premise becomes sufficient to definitively prove the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each argument to identify its stated premise and its final conclusion.
For example, in the first argument, Premise: 'will increase traffic flow', Conclusion: 'should be approved'.
Finding the structural components of the argument is the first step in identifying the missing logical gap.
2
Determine the required sufficient assumption by linking the premise directly to the conclusion.
The correct format for the assumption is 'If [Premise], then [Conclusion]'. For the first argument, this means 'If it increases traffic flow, it should be approved'.
A sufficient assumption mathematically guarantees the conclusion, completing the deductive bridge.
3
Match each argument with its corresponding 'If Premise, then Conclusion' statement from the available options.
The four correct statements directly link the provided premises to their respective conclusions without reversing the logic.
Reversing the logic (If Conclusion, then Premise) is a common trap and does not guarantee the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 1302Soru →

City Council Member: To reduce the severe traffic congestion on Main Street during rush hour, we should implement a toll for driving on that road during peak times. People strongly dislike paying tolls, so they will choose alternative routes. This behavioral shift will successfully ease the traffic on Main Street.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some drivers who currently use Main Street during rush hour have alternative routes available to them.

Cevap

The correct assumption is that at least some drivers who use Main Street have alternative routes available to them.
This statement is logically required by the argument. Using the Negation Technique, if we negate 'at least some' to 'none', we get: 'No drivers who currently use Main Street during rush hour have alternative routes available to them.' If this were true, drivers would be forced to stay on Main Street despite the toll, meaning the traffic would not be eased through the mechanism described. Because negating this statement destroys the argument's conclusion, it is a strictly necessary assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the argument.
Conclusion: The toll will ease traffic. Premise: People dislike tolls and will choose alternative routes.
Understanding the argument structure is the first step in finding the necessary assumption.
2
Identify the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that choosing alternative routes is actually a viable physical possibility for the drivers.
A necessary assumption must bridge the gap between what is stated and what is concluded.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the strongest candidate.
Negating 'At least some drivers have alternative routes' becomes 'No drivers have alternative routes.' If true, drivers cannot choose alternative routes, and traffic will not be eased. This destroys the argument.
The Negation Technique definitively proves whether an assumption is logically required.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Technique to Necessary Assumptions
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 1303Soru →

Linguist: To determine whether early exposure to multiple languages enhances cognitive flexibility, researchers tracked two groups of children over ten years: one group raised in bilingual households and another raised in monolingual households. To ensure the study measured sustained language exposure, the researchers excluded any child who failed to maintain fluency in all the languages spoken in their respective households throughout the decade. At the end of the study, the bilingual cohort scored significantly higher on cognitive flexibility assessments. Therefore, early exposure to multiple languages enhances cognitive flexibility.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: incorporates a selection criterion for its sample that is likely to favor individuals who possess the very cognitive trait the researchers were investigating

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument incorporates a selection criterion for its sample that is likely to favor individuals who possess the very cognitive trait the researchers were investigating.
The correct answer accurately identifies the critical sampling flaw in the study's methodology. By establishing a rule that excludes any child who failed to maintain language fluency over a ten-year period, the researchers likely eliminated subjects who inherently possessed lower cognitive flexibility. Because this exclusion disproportionately filters the bilingual group (who had the much harder task of maintaining multiple languages), the final sample is fundamentally skewed. The surviving bilingual cohort consists primarily of children who already had the cognitive tools necessary to maintain multiple languages, rendering the final comparison invalid.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'Therefore, early exposure to multiple languages enhances cognitive flexibility.'
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to evaluate the evidence provided.
2
Analyze the premises and the methodology used to reach the conclusion.
Researchers tracked two groups over ten years but applied a strict exclusion criterion: they removed any child who failed to maintain fluency in all household languages.
In Logical Reasoning questions involving studies, the methodology often contains the core logical vulnerability.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the methodology and the conclusion to find the logical gap.
Maintaining fluency in multiple languages over a decade is cognitively demanding. Children with lower cognitive flexibility are more likely to drop a language and be excluded. Thus, the final bilingual sample consists primarily of those who inherently possessed high cognitive flexibility to begin with.
This reveals a severe selection bias (survivorship bias). The sample is skewed by the very trait it aims to measure.
4
Match the discovered flaw with the answer choices.
The correct option abstractly describes this methodological flaw by noting the selection criterion favors those who already possess the investigated trait.
The correct answer must accurately and precisely describe the structural weakness in the argument's reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Selection Bias / Unrepresentative Sample
Soru 1304Soru →

Labor Economist: Analysts predict that integrating generative AI will cause severe workforce contraction because it executes routine tasks faster than humans. This ignores historical precedent. In the 1980s, spreadsheet software automated manual calculations but ultimately expanded accounting employment by reducing the cost of financial analysis, thereby catalyzing massive demand for such services. Therefore, generative AI will similarly yield a net employment expansion within adopting industries.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The cost reductions achieved through the integration of generative AI will not be restricted to industries where lower prices are incapable of stimulating increased demand.

Cevap

The cost reductions achieved through the integration of generative AI will not be restricted to industries where lower prices are incapable of stimulating increased demand.
The argument relies heavily on an analogy to spreadsheet software, where cost reductions led to a surge in demand that ultimately created more jobs. For this analogy to hold and guarantee a net employment expansion, it must be true that the industries adopting AI can actually experience increased demand when their service costs drop. If cost reductions are entirely restricted to industries where lower prices cannot stimulate demand (the logical negation of this option), the fundamental mechanism fails, and employment will not expand. Therefore, the argument depends on this assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
Generative AI will yield a net employment expansion within the industries that adopt it.
This establishes the final claim that the author is trying to prove.
2
Identify the core premises supporting the conclusion.
Spreadsheet software expanded employment because the resulting cost reductions catalyzed massive demand for financial services.
The author uses an argument by analogy, relying on this historical precedent as the logical foundation.
3
Recognize the logical gap between the premise and conclusion.
The author assumes that the specific mechanism that worked for spreadsheets (lower costs leading to increased demand that outpaces job automation) will successfully apply to the modern industries adopting generative AI.
For an argument by analogy to hold, the relevant underlying conditions must be similar.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the options to find the logically necessary assumption.
Negating the correct option means cost reductions WILL be restricted to industries where lower prices CANNOT stimulate demand. This completely destroys the mechanism of the argument, invalidating the conclusion.
A necessary assumption is a statement that must be true for the argument to survive; if its negation destroys the argument, it is the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defender/Bridge)
Soru 1305Soru →

An aerospace legal scholar's argument relies on a chain of formal conditional logic, but it contains a gap that must be filled by a sufficient assumption. Arrange the following five statements in their strict deductive sequence to demonstrate how the assumption structurally completes the argument. Your sequence MUST begin with the statement introducing the initial sufficient trigger, progress sequentially through the intermediate necessary conditions, insert the sufficient assumption exactly where it bridges the final conceptual gap, and conclude with the main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence is: 1) The triggering premise about deploying mega-constellations, 2) The necessary condition about creating a navigation hazard, 3) The 'unless' clause regarding the Kessler treaty, 4) The sufficient assumption linking the treaty violation to strict liability, and 5) The final conclusion.
The argument forms a strict conditional chain. Let A = 'deploys mega-constellation networks', B = 'generates un-trackable micro-debris', C = 'creates a navigation hazard', D = 'violates the Kessler sustainability treaty', and E = 'incurs strict liability'. The initial premise establishes A -> B ('B if A'). The second premise establishes B -> C by stating C is a necessary condition for B. The third premise establishes C -> D using the 'unless' formulation (if not D, then not C; which yields the contrapositive C -> D). At this point, the premises provide A -> B -> C -> D. The main conclusion claims A -> E. To structurally guarantee this conclusion, we need the sufficient assumption D -> E. Inserting this assumption completes the chain A -> B -> C -> D -> E, which successfully and logically guarantees the conclusion A -> E.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the initial sufficient trigger.
The conclusion is the statement beginning with 'Therefore'. It claims that deploying mega-constellation networks (A) guarantees strict liability (E). The initial trigger is deploying mega-constellation networks (A).
Finding the endpoints of the argument dictates the starting and ending points of the deductive sequence.
2
Translate the conditional logic of the remaining premises.
The first statement translates to: Deploy Networks (A) -> Generates Debris (B). The second statement translates to: Generates Debris (B) -> Navigation Hazard (C). The third statement translates to: Navigation Hazard (C) -> Violates Treaty (D) because 'unless' means 'if not' (if not D, then not C, which contraposes to C -> D).
Translating natural language into formal logic reveals how the terms link together in a continuous chain.
3
Identify the logical gap to locate the sufficient assumption.
The explicit premises give us A -> B -> C -> D. The conclusion claims A -> E. The missing link required to make the argument valid is D -> E (Violates Treaty -> Strict Liability).
A sufficient assumption must perfectly bridge the gap between the established premises and the final conclusion.
4
Order the statements sequentially to form the continuous chain.
The chain structurally progresses as A -> B, then B -> C, then C -> D, then the assumption D -> E, and finally concludes with A -> E.
The prompt explicitly requires starting with the initial trigger and progressing through the linked necessary conditions to the final conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chaining and Sufficient Assumptions
Soru 1306Soru →

To increase productivity, a software company is mandating a switch from traditional keyboards to new ergonomic keyboards for all its programmers. The manufacturer of the ergonomic keyboards has proven that they reduce typing strain by 40 percent. Therefore, the company's programmers will definitely produce more code per week after the switch.

Which of the following statements are necessary assumptions required by the argument? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Typing strain is currently a factor that limits the amount of code the programmers can produce.; The programmers will not experience a decrease in typing speed that entirely offsets the benefits of the reduced strain.

Cevap

The argument necessarily assumes that typing strain currently limits code production and that negative factors (like a decrease in typing speed) will not completely offset the benefits of the new keyboards.
The correct statements bridge the critical gaps in the argument. First, for a reduction in typing strain to increase code output, typing strain must actually be a limiting factor in the current workflow. Second, introducing a new tool must not introduce new inefficiencies (like slower typing speeds) that cancel out the promised benefits. If either of these statements is logically negated, the conclusion that programmers will 'definitely produce more code' collapses.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument structure.
Premise: Ergonomic keyboards reduce typing strain by 40%. Conclusion: Programmers will produce more code per week.
Understanding the premise and conclusion is required to spot the logical gaps.
2
Determine the logical gaps between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that reducing typing strain directly causes an increase in code production, and that introducing new keyboards won't cause other problems.
An argument's conclusion only follows if all missing links are accounted for.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the answer choices.
Negating the correct options causes the argument to logically collapse. For example, if typing strain does NOT limit code production, the conclusion fails.
The Negation Technique is the definitive test for a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions
Soru 1307Soru →

Ethicist: A charitable action possesses true moral worth only if it stems from a genuine sense of duty. Furthermore, it is well established that no actions primarily motivated by a desire for public recognition stem from a genuine sense of duty. It follows necessarily that any corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve a company's public image lacks true moral worth.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve a company's public image is primarily motivated by a desire for public recognition.

Cevap

The assumption that any corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve a company's public image is primarily motivated by a desire for public recognition.
The argument concludes that corporate philanthropy initiatives designed to improve public image lack true moral worth. The premises establish a formal chain: if an action is motivated by a desire for public recognition, it does not stem from a genuine sense of duty, and therefore it lacks true moral worth. To properly draw the conclusion, we must connect the subject of the conclusion to this established chain. The correct answer acts as this perfect logical bridge by stating that any such corporate initiative is indeed primarily motivated by a desire for public recognition, thus guaranteeing that it lacks true moral worth.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: Any corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve a company's public image lacks true moral worth.
This is the endpoint of the argument, explicitly indicated by the phrase 'It follows necessarily that'.
2
Map the formal logic of the premises.
Premise 1: True moral worth -> Stems from a genuine sense of duty. Premise 2: Motivated by a desire for public recognition -> Does NOT stem from a genuine sense of duty.
Mapping conditional statements reveals the existing logical chain constructed by the author.
3
Combine the premises using contrapositives.
The contrapositive of Premise 1 is: Does NOT stem from a genuine sense of duty -> Lacks true moral worth. Linking this to Premise 2 yields: Motivated by a desire for public recognition -> Lacks true moral worth.
We must find out what the premises collectively prove about the concept of moral worth.
4
Identify the gap between the premise chain and the conclusion.
The premises prove that seeking public recognition leads to a lack of moral worth. The conclusion claims that corporate initiatives designed to improve public image lack moral worth. The missing link is connecting these specific corporate initiatives to the desire for public recognition.
A sufficient assumption must mathematically bridge the gap between the evidence provided and the final conclusion drawn.
5
Formulate the necessary bridge to guarantee the conclusion.
We must assume: Corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve public image -> Motivated by a desire for public recognition.
Adding this conditional statement allows the argument to flow unbroken from the subject of the conclusion to the final judgment of lacking moral worth.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions Using Formal Logic
Soru 1308Soru →

An argument states: 'A public health organization sought to determine the average weekly exercise habits of adults in the nation. The organization mailed a comprehensive questionnaire to 50,000 randomly selected households. Of the 4,200 adults who completed and returned the questionnaire, 78% reported exercising for at least 150 minutes per week. Based on these results, the organization concluded that a strong majority of adults in the nation meet the standard recommendation of 150 minutes of weekly exercise.'

Statement: The organization's argument is flawed primarily because a sample of 4,200 respondents is inherently too small to provide a statistically reliable estimate for an entire national adult population.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The statement is False. The argument's flaw is an unrepresentative sample caused by non-response bias, not an inherently insufficient sample size.
The statement is false because it misidentifies the logical flaw. A sample size of 4,200 is highly robust for a national estimate if the sample is truly random and unbiased. The argument actually suffers from a representativeness flaw (specifically, non-response bias), because the subset of people who take the time to fill out and return a health questionnaire are likely to have vastly different exercise habits than the 45,800 who threw it away.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the methodology used in the argument to gather data.
The organization sent 50,000 surveys, but only 4,200 were returned. The conclusion about the national population is based entirely on the habits of those 4,200 respondents.
Understanding how the sample was generated is necessary to identify any methodological flaws.
2
Evaluate the specific criticism made in the provided statement.
The statement claims the argument is flawed specifically because the sample size of 4,200 is 'inherently too small' to represent the national population.
To determine if the statement is true or false, we must assess whether a 'small sample size' is the actual logical violation occurring in the stimulus.
3
Assess the statistical validity of the sample size versus its representativeness.
A sample of 4,200 is mathematically large enough to yield a statistically significant estimate for a national population, provided the sample is unbiased. However, the low response rate introduces severe non-response bias, meaning the 4,200 respondents are unlikely to be representative of the whole.
Distinguishing between sample size (quantity) and sample bias (quality) is critical for accurately diagnosing the flaw.
4
Determine the truth value of the statement.
Because the actual flaw is non-response bias (unrepresentative sample) rather than a small sample size, the statement incorrectly diagnoses the logical error.
An incorrect diagnosis of an argument's flaw makes the evaluative statement false.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing between an insufficient sample size and an unrepresentative sample (non-response/voluntary response bias).
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1309Soru →

Urban Planner: In the city of Oakhaven, the local government recently implemented a "smart traffic light" system at all major intersections in an effort to reduce commute times. Since the system was activated six months ago, the average commute time for residents driving to the city center during peak hours has decreased by 15%. Therefore, it is clear that the new smart traffic light system is responsible for this reduction in commute times.

Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthen the argument? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Over the past six months, the total volume of vehicular traffic entering Oakhaven's city center during peak hours has steadily increased.; Neighboring cities with similar infrastructure that did not install smart traffic lights experienced no decrease in average commute times over the same six-month period.

Cevap

The correct statements are the one indicating an increase in total traffic volume and the one demonstrating that neighboring cities without the system saw no reduction in commute times.
To strengthen a causal argument, one must provide evidence that supports the proposed cause over alternative explanations. The statement showing an increase in traffic volume strengthens the argument by ruling out 'fewer cars on the road' as an alternative cause (in fact, if volume increased but times decreased, the lights must be highly effective). The statement showing no improvement in neighboring cities acts as a control group, demonstrating that where the cause (smart lights) is absent, the effect (reduced commute time) is also absent.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The new smart traffic light system is responsible for the 15% reduction in commute times.
This establishes the core causal claim that must be strengthened.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The system was activated six months ago, and commute times decreased by 15% during that exact same timeframe.
Understanding the evidence reveals that the argument relies entirely on a chronological correlation.
3
Identify the logical gap (flaw) in the argument.
The argument assumes causation based solely on correlation. It fails to account for other factors that might have reduced commute times over the last six months.
To strengthen a causal argument, you must usually patch its core vulnerability by ruling out alternative causes or confirming the cause-and-effect relationship.
4
Evaluate options to find those that bridge the logical gap.
One correct option shows that traffic volume increased (eliminating 'fewer cars' as an alternative cause). The other correct option shows that without the new lights, similar cities saw no improvement (showing cause-without-effect controls).
Both selected options independently bolster the causal claim using standard logical reasoning techniques.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening Causal Arguments (Ruling out alternatives and showing control groups)
Soru 1310Soru →

Mayor Lin proposes a comprehensive plan to reduce municipal waste, arguing that the city's landfill will reach capacity within five years based on current disposal rates. In response, a city council member argues that the proposal should be rejected because Mayor Lin's own private business was recently fined for illegal dumping, demonstrating her lack of genuine commitment to environmental sustainability.

The council member's rebuttal successfully undermines Mayor Lin's argument by exposing a fundamental contradiction in the substantive premises of the waste reduction plan.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The statement is False.
The statement inaccurately describes the logical function of the council member's rebuttal. By attacking Mayor Lin's past business practices, the council member attacks the source's character and motives (an ad hominem flaw) rather than engaging with the substantive factual premises regarding the landfill's capacity and current disposal rates.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Mayor Lin's original argument.
Premise: The landfill will reach capacity in five years based on current rates. Conclusion: A comprehensive waste reduction plan is needed.
To establish the substantive claims and the logical structure of the primary argument.
2
Analyze the council member's rebuttal.
Premise: Mayor Lin's private business was fined for illegal dumping. Conclusion: The proposal should be rejected.
To identify the method of reasoning used to counter the original argument.
3
Evaluate the target of the council member's critique.
The rebuttal focuses entirely on Mayor Lin's character, behavior, and hypocrisy, ignoring the data about the landfill.
To determine whether the rebuttal addresses substantive premises or merely proponent characteristics.
4
Assess the given statement against the logical structure.
The statement incorrectly claims the rebuttal exposes a contradiction in the 'substantive premises', when it actually attacks the source.
To yield the final true/false evaluation.

Anahtar Kavram

Ad Hominem (Source Argument - Tu Quoque)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1311Soru →

Match each flawed argument to the correct description of its logical reasoning error.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The proposed ban on loud music in the park is supported by Councilman Miller. However, Miller is known for being grumpy and disliking young people. Therefore, the proposed ban is a terrible idea.
A recent study shows that people who drink green tea regularly tend to live longer than those who do not. Clearly, drinking green tea directly extends a person's lifespan.
To bake a perfect loaf of bread, one must use high-quality flour. Susan used the most expensive, high-quality flour available, so her bread is guaranteed to be perfect.
Every individual musician in the city's symphony orchestra is world-renowned and a brilliant soloist. Therefore, the orchestra as a whole must sound brilliant when playing together.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings map the Councilman Miller argument to the personal characteristics flaw, the green tea argument to the correlation/causation flaw, the bread argument to the required/guaranteed condition flaw, and the orchestra argument to the parts/whole flaw.
Each argument commits a foundational logical fallacy frequently tested on the exam. The first argument attacks the speaker (Ad Hominem). The second confuses an observed trend with a definitive cause. The third treats an essential ingredient as a guarantee of success (Illegal Reversal). The fourth assumes a group shares the exact traits of its individual members (Composition).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each argument to isolate the conclusion and the supporting premises.
Identified the logical leaps: attacking character, confusing correlation with cause, confusing necessary with sufficient, and confusing parts with the whole.
Identifying the disconnect between premise and conclusion is the core task in spotting logical flaws.
2
Review the descriptions of the logical flaws provided in the right-hand list.
Matched the abstract descriptions to the specific flawed patterns identified in Step 1.
LSAT questions require translating specific scenarios into abstract logical rules or flaws.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning
Soru 1312Soru →

Over the past year, Lake Crescent has seen a massive increase in its algae population. However, biologists note that algae typically require warm, stagnant water to thrive, and over the past year Lake Crescent has experienced unusually cold temperatures and strong, continuous currents.

Which one of the following best identifies the apparent discrepancy in the information above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The algae population in Lake Crescent grew substantially even though the lake's environmental conditions were highly unfavorable for such growth.

Cevap

The option stating that the algae population grew substantially even though the lake's environmental conditions were highly unfavorable for such growth.
The correct answer accurately encapsulates both contrasting facts presented in the stimulus: the fact that the algae population increased, and the fact that the lake's conditions were exactly the opposite of what algae typically need. It successfully isolates the point of tension without adding outside information or attempting to solve the mystery.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to extract the factual premises.
Fact 1: The algae population increased massively. Fact 2: The lake had cold, moving water, but algae generally require warm, stagnant water to thrive.
Identifying a discrepancy requires breaking the stimulus down into its conflicting components.
2
Determine the precise point of logical tension.
The conflict is that an organism thrived in an environment that should have prevented its growth.
Understanding the exact nature of the contradiction helps in eliminating answers that miss the core issue.
3
Evaluate the options to find the one that simply states this conflict without attempting to explain or resolve it.
The correct option plainly contrasts the massive growth with the unfavorable conditions, matching the logical tension perfectly.
In 'Identify the Discrepancy' questions, correct answers isolate the paradox; incorrect answers often attempt to resolve it or state only one side of the issue.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the Apparent Discrepancy
Soru 1313Soru →

Any municipal planner who prioritizes rapid commercial expansion over sustainable infrastructure inevitably encounters severe zoning disputes. Furthermore, no municipal planner who encounters severe zoning disputes is eligible for appointment to the Regional Planning Commission, unless that planner has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council. The planner overseeing the newly proposed waterfront district has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council. Therefore, this planner must not have prioritized rapid commercial expansion over sustainable infrastructure.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any municipal planner who has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council has avoided encountering severe zoning disputes.

Cevap

The statement that any municipal planner who has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council has avoided encountering severe zoning disputes.
The correct answer provides the missing conditional link needed to logically guarantee the conclusion. We know from the first premise that prioritizing rapid expansion guarantees severe zoning disputes. Therefore, by the contrapositive, if a planner does NOT have severe zoning disputes, they did NOT prioritize rapid expansion. We are told the waterfront planner has the unanimous endorsement of the city council. By assuming that ANY planner with this endorsement avoids severe zoning disputes, we can conclude that the waterfront planner avoided these disputes, and thus logically must not have prioritized rapid expansion. The second premise regarding the Regional Planning Commission is an intricate distractor designed to misdirect attention from the core conditional chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into formal conditional statements.
Premise 1: Rapid Expansion -> Severe Disputes. Premise 2: Severe Disputes AND NO Endorsement -> NOT Eligible. Premise 3: Waterfront Planner -> Endorsement. Conclusion: Waterfront Planner -> NO Rapid Expansion.
Formalizing the logic reveals the structural relationships and isolates the missing link.
2
Determine the necessary condition to prove the conclusion.
By the contrapositive of Premise 1, to prove 'NO Rapid Expansion', we must prove 'NO Severe Disputes' (NO Severe Disputes -> NO Rapid Expansion).
Working backward from the conclusion dictates exactly what intermediate fact must be established.
3
Identify the gap between the given premises and the required intermediate fact.
We know the Waterfront Planner has the Endorsement. We need to prove they have NO Severe Disputes. Therefore, the missing link is: Endorsement -> NO Severe Disputes.
A sufficient assumption must completely bridge the gap between known evidence and the required logical step.
4
Evaluate the options to find the statement that provides absolute guarantee.
The option stating that 'any' planner with the endorsement avoids severe disputes provides the strict, 100% guarantee required to seal the logical chain.
Sufficient assumptions cannot rely on probability ('most' or 'some'); they require deductive certainty.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions using Conditional Logic
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1314Soru →

Art Conservator: A recently unearthed landscape painting bears the signature of Clara Vane and perfectly matches her distinctive brushwork. However, chemical analysis reveals traces of cerulean blue in the sky section—a synthetic pigment not commercially available until 1860, eight years after Vane's death. Consequently, the painting cannot be an authentic work by Vane and must be a clever forgery.

Is the following statement about the argument true or false?

The conservator's argument requires the assumption that the cerulean blue pigment was not applied to an authentic Vane canvas during a subsequent restoration or modification effort.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

The statement is True. The argument inherently relies on the assumption that the pigment was part of the original composition rather than a later addition.
The statement is true because it identifies a 'defender' assumption necessary for the conclusion to hold. The argument concludes the painting must be a forgery solely because it contains a pigment from 1860. By applying the Negation Test, if we assume the pigment WAS applied to an authentic Vane canvas during a later restoration, then the painting is not inherently a forgery, and the conclusion is entirely destroyed. Thus, the author must assume no such restoration occurred.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the premises and the conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: The painting has cerulean blue, available in 1860. Premise 2: The artist died in 1852. Conclusion: The painting must be a forgery.
Deconstructing the argument is the necessary first step to finding its logical gaps.
2
Identify the logical leap made by the author.
The author jumps from the fact that the painting 'contains a newer material' to the definitive conclusion that 'the entire object was created at a later date'.
Understanding the logical gap points directly to what the author must be assuming to bridge it.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the provided statement.
Negated statement: The cerulean blue WAS applied to an authentic Vane canvas during a subsequent restoration or modification effort.
The Negation Test is the most reliable analytical tool to prove if an assumption is strictly necessary.
4
Evaluate the effect of the negated statement on the argument's conclusion.
If the newer pigment was simply added later to an otherwise authentic painting, the conclusion that the entire artwork 'must be a clever forgery' is completely destroyed.
Because the negated statement invalidates the conclusion, the original statement is proven to be a logically necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Test to identify 'Defender' assumptions that rule out alternate explanations.
Soru 1315Soru →

Paleontologists have excavated a dense concentration of Bactrosaurus fossils in a single geological stratum dating to a period immediately following a colossal volcanic eruption. Volcanic ash contains extremely high levels of fluorine, and ingesting large quantities of fluorine causes acute, fatal bone toxicity in large herbivores. Based on this evidence, the paleontologists concluded that these dinosaurs perished from fluorine poisoning contracted by grazing on vegetation blanketed by the volcanic ash.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The layer of volcanic ash did not completely bury the local vegetation to a depth that rendered it inaccessible to the Bactrosaurus.

Cevap

The argument assumes that the volcanic ash did not completely bury the vegetation, leaving it accessible for the dinosaurs to graze upon.
The argument concludes that the dinosaurs died specifically by grazing on vegetation covered in volcanic ash. For this causal sequence to be physically possible, the vegetation must have remained accessible after the eruption. If the 'colossal' eruption completely buried the plants under feet of ash (the negation of this option), the dinosaurs could not have grazed on them, and the argument's specific causal mechanism completely fails. Therefore, assuming the plants were not rendered completely inaccessible is strictly necessary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The Bactrosaurus perished from fluorine poisoning contracted by grazing on vegetation blanketed by the volcanic ash.
Isolating the conclusion is necessary to understand the exact causal mechanism proposed.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Fossils were found after a colossal eruption; ash contains fluorine; large quantities of fluorine cause fatal bone toxicity.
Premises establish the correlation and the biological mechanism of the toxin.
3
Locate the logical gap or vulnerability in the reasoning.
The argument assumes a practical link between the ash falling and the dinosaurs eating the ash-covered plants.
The conclusion relies on the physical act of 'grazing on vegetation blanketed by ash'. If the 'colossal' eruption buried all plants, this act would be physically impossible.
4
Evaluate the options using the Negation Technique.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The ash completely buried the vegetation, rendering it inaccessible.' This destroys the conclusion, confirming it is a necessary assumption.
A necessary assumption must be fundamentally true for the argument to survive; negating it proves its absolute necessity.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying necessary assumptions by verifying the logistical viability of a proposed causal mechanism.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1316Soru →

Mayor: The proposed community center will feature a large community garden. Community gardens require participants to work collaboratively on shared plots of land. Therefore, building the new community center will foster stronger neighborhood bonds.

The conclusion drawn by the mayor depends on which one of the following assumptions?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Working collaboratively on shared plots of land fosters stronger neighborhood bonds.

Cevap

The assumption that working collaboratively on shared plots of land fosters stronger neighborhood bonds.
The argument concludes that the new community center will foster stronger neighborhood bonds based entirely on the premise that the center's garden requires participants to work collaboratively on shared plots of land. For this conclusion to be valid, there must be a logical link between the premise (working collaboratively) and the conclusion (stronger neighborhood bonds). The correct choice explicitly provides this necessary bridge, ensuring the premises properly support the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Building the new community center will foster stronger neighborhood bonds.
Locating the main conclusion is the first step to finding a logical gap in an argument.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The center will feature a garden, and community gardens require working collaboratively on shared plots.
Understanding the evidence helps isolate what concepts are already logically established.
3
Find the rogue element in the conclusion that is not mentioned in the premises.
The concept of 'fostering stronger neighborhood bonds' appears only in the conclusion.
A supporter assumption must bridge the gap between the established premises and the entirely new concept introduced in the conclusion.
4
Formulate the missing link to bridge the gap.
Connect 'working collaboratively on shared plots' to 'fostering stronger neighborhood bonds'.
This bridge justifies the jump from the provided premises to the final conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions
Soru 1317Soru →

Argument: Last year, the Sunnyvale City Council launched a public awareness campaign promoting the health benefits of eating locally grown produce. Over the past twelve months, the sales of locally grown produce at Sunnyvale farmers' markets have doubled. The city council concludes that their public awareness campaign successfully persuaded residents to buy more local produce.

Statement: The new fact that a massive nationwide shortage of non-local produce drastically increased the prices of imported vegetables over the last twelve months actively weakens the city council's conclusion.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The factual assertion is true. The argument relies on a causal link between the awareness campaign and the increase in sales. By introducing a different, highly practical economic reason for people to buy local produce (imported produce became too expensive), the new fact provides a strong alternative explanation for the observed phenomenon. This directly undermines the conclusion that the campaign was the driving force behind the increased sales.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and conclusion.
Premise: Campaign launched, local produce sales doubled. Conclusion: The campaign caused the increase in sales.
Understanding the exact causal claim is necessary to evaluate whether it can be weakened.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the argument.
The argument assumes that because the campaign preceded the increase in sales, it must have caused the increase, ignoring other potential economic or environmental factors.
Weakening an argument usually involves exploiting its logical gap, such as a jump from correlation to causation.
3
Evaluate the impact of the new factual assertion on the argument's conclusion.
The new fact introduces a competing cause for the increased sales: high prices of alternative (imported) produce. This makes the campaign less likely to be the actual cause.
To determine if the statement is true, we must verify if the new fact actively undermines the causal relationship claimed in the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying alternative causes to weaken causal conclusions.
Soru 1318Soru →

Mayor: We should build a new community pool in the town center. Swimming is an excellent form of cardiovascular exercise that can be enjoyed by people of all ages. Currently, our town's residents have very limited options for cardiovascular exercise due to a lack of public facilities. Therefore, building this new pool will significantly improve the overall cardiovascular health of our residents.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some of the town's residents will actually use the new community pool for exercise if it is built.

Cevap

The assumption that at least some of the town's residents will actually use the new community pool for exercise if it is built.
The correct answer acts as the essential bridge between the construction of the pool and the health benefits it is supposed to provide. We can verify this using the Negation Test: if we logically negate this statement to 'None of the town's residents will use the new community pool for exercise,' the mayor's conclusion that the pool will significantly improve overall cardiovascular health becomes impossible. The argument fundamentally relies on the unstated, minimal premise that the new facility will actually be utilized by at least a portion of the population.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
Building the new pool will significantly improve the overall cardiovascular health of the residents.
Understanding the conclusion is the first critical step to evaluating the argument's underlying logic.
2
Identify the stated premises supporting the conclusion.
Swimming is excellent cardiovascular exercise, and residents currently have limited exercise options.
Separating the explicit evidence from the conclusion reveals the logical gap.
3
Find the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument assumes a direct connection between building the facility (premise) and residents achieving better health (conclusion).
Necessary assumptions bridge unstated gaps in an argument.
4
Apply the Negation Test to evaluate potential assumptions.
Negating the correct answer yields: 'None of the residents will use the pool.' If true, the pool cannot improve health, destroying the conclusion.
A necessary assumption must be true for the argument to hold; if its negation destroys the argument, it is the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Test
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 1319Soru →

Marine Biologist: To restore the declining coral reefs off the coast of Marland Island, the local government banned commercial fishing within a 10-mile radius three years ago. Recent surveys show that the coral density in this protected zone has increased by 30%. Therefore, the ban on commercial fishing directly caused this recovery of the coral reefs.

Which of the following are necessary assumptions upon which the marine biologist's argument depends? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The observed increase in coral density was not entirely the result of environmental changes independent of the fishing ban.; Prior to the ban, commercial fishing operations were negatively impacting the health of the coral reefs in the protected zone.

Cevap

The correct assumptions are that independent environmental changes were not the sole cause of the recovery, and that commercial fishing was actually negatively impacting the reefs before the ban.
When an argument concludes that one event directly caused another simply because it occurred beforehand, it relies on two primary types of necessary assumptions. First, it must assume that there was no alternate cause entirely responsible for the observed effect (a 'defender' assumption). Second, it must assume that the supposed cause actually had a mechanism to influence the situation. The correct choices establish that natural environmental changes did not act alone, and that commercial fishing was genuinely harming the reef prior to the ban.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core components of the argument.
Premise: A fishing ban was implemented, followed by a 30% increase in coral density. Conclusion: The ban directly caused the recovery.
Deconstructing the argument highlights that it relies entirely on a sequence of events to establish a causal relationship.
2
Anticipate the logical gaps in a causal argument.
For A to cause B, B cannot have been caused entirely by an alternate factor (C), and A must actually have the capacity to affect B.
Causal arguments frequently ignore alternate causes or assume an impact that didn't exist.
3
Apply the Negation Test to candidate answers.
Negating the correct choices destroys the conclusion. If independent factors caused the entire recovery, the ban did not. If fishing never harmed the reef, banning it didn't help.
The Negation Test proves whether an assumption is strictly logically necessary for the conclusion to hold.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defending Causal Claims)
Soru 1320Soru →

During the late nineteenth century, the rapid integration of mechanized looms in the textile mills of the Solway region was immediately followed by a sharp decline in the number of itinerant weavers seeking contract work there. Economic historians have concluded that the operational efficiency of the mechanized looms eliminated the demand for manual weaving, directly causing the itinerant workforce to abandon the region.

Evaluate the logical requirements of the historians' conclusion.

Statement: The argument fundamentally relies on the assumption that a severe shortage of raw materials did not force the Solway textile mills to drastically reduce their overall operations during that same period.

Is the statement above true or false?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is true because the argument asserts a causal relationship: mechanization caused the drop in itinerant weavers. For this causal claim to hold, we must rule out alternate explanations for the weavers' departure. If a raw material shortage drastically reduced mill operations, there would be no work for the weavers regardless of mechanization. By negating the assumption (assuming the shortage did happen), the alternate cause explains the drop in weavers, destroying the original causal claim. Therefore, assuming the shortage did NOT happen is necessary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and the supporting evidence in the argument.
Conclusion: The operational efficiency of the mechanized looms caused the itinerant workforce to abandon the region. Evidence: The introduction of mechanized looms immediately preceded the sharp decline in itinerant weavers.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to expose the core causal relationship being claimed by the author.
2
Categorize the reasoning gap present in the stimulus.
The argument assumes that a chronological correlation implies exclusive causation, failing to structurally account for other potential reasons the weavers might have left at that exact time.
Identifying the causal gap determines what type of assumption is needed to defend the argument against alternative explanations.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the candidate statement.
Negated statement: A severe shortage of raw materials DID force the Solway textile mills to drastically reduce their overall operations during that same period.
The Negation Test definitively proves whether an assumption is strictly necessary for the conclusion to survive.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the core conclusion.
The negated statement provides a robust alternative explanation for the weavers' departure (lack of materials meaning lack of work), completely severing the original claim that the mechanized looms were the cause.
If negating the assumption destroys the argument, the original statement is a logically necessary defender assumption, making the evaluation 'True'.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
ÖncekiSayfa 66 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin