Examkin

Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Tüm türler3,960Çoktan seçmeli2,053Çoklu seçim382Doğru / Yanlış424Eşleştirme899Sıralama123Boşluk doldurma38Kısa cevap41
Soru 1321Soru →

An ethicist argues: 'Any entity that possesses both self-reflective awareness and the capacity to experience suffering qualifies as a moral patient. Furthermore, it is a proven fact that autonomous neural networks with dynamic recursive feedback loops possess self-reflective awareness. Therefore, all advanced synthetic intelligences qualify as moral patients.'

To logically guarantee this conclusion, a series of implicit assumptions and intermediate deductions must be linked in a strict formal chain. Arrange the following deductive steps in the correct sequential order to construct the logical bridge that sufficiently proves the argument's conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence requires establishing the subject's composition, deducing its first trait, assuming the necessary link to the second trait, synthesizing both traits, and finally applying the primary conditional rule.
The sequence successfully bridges the logical gaps by first connecting the novel subject to the existing premises, deriving the first necessary component of the compound condition, introducing a secondary assumption to derive the final component, synthesizing these traits, and ultimately applying the primary principle to strictly guarantee the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the missing link between the conclusion's subject and the given factual premise.
Posit that advanced synthetic intelligences are autonomous neural networks.
This establishes the foundation for applying the known factual rule about neural networks.
2
Deduce the first trait.
Infer that advanced synthetic intelligences have self-reflective awareness.
This follows logically from the first assumption and the factual premise, establishing the first half of the sufficient condition.
3
Identify the remaining logical gap regarding the capacity to suffer.
Posit that self-reflective awareness guarantees the capacity to experience suffering.
The main conclusion requires the capacity to suffer, which has not yet been logically established for the subject.
4
Combine the deduced traits.
Establish that both conditions of the ethicist's compound requirement are met.
The ethicist's primary rule strictly requires BOTH traits to trigger the classification.
5
Apply the primary conditional rule.
Classify advanced synthetic intelligences as moral patients.
With the sufficient compound conditions fully met, the final conclusion is logically guaranteed.

Anahtar Kavram

Constructing a formal deductive chain to identify and integrate compound sufficient assumptions.
Soru 1322Soru →

Mayor: Over the past five years, the number of community gardens in our city has doubled. During this exact same time period, the city's crime rate has dropped by 15 percent. Therefore, it is clear that building more community gardens reduces crime.

The reasoning in the mayor's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument...

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: presumes, without providing justification, that a correlation between two events implies that one causes the other.

Cevap

The argument presumes, without providing justification, that a correlation between two events implies that one causes the other.
The correct answer accurately describes the classic 'correlation implies causation' fallacy. The mayor observes two simultaneous trends over a five-year period—an increase in community gardens and a decrease in crime—and improperly concludes that the first trend directly caused the second, ignoring other potential variables that could have reduced crime.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises of the argument.
Premise 1: Community gardens doubled. Premise 2: The crime rate dropped by 15 percent during the exact same period.
Understanding the evidence provided is the first step in evaluating the argument's structure.
2
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: Building more community gardens reduces crime.
The logical flaw will always be found in the leap from the premises to the main conclusion.
3
Analyze the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises state that two events happened at the same time (a correlation). The conclusion leaps to stating that one event caused the other (causation).
Identifying this gap reveals the specific logical flaw committed in the reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Correlation vs. Causation
Soru 1323Soru →

City councilor: We recently distributed a survey to individuals holding annual vehicle registration passes in the metropolitan area to measure support for expanding the car-free downtown plazas. Of the thousands who mailed back their responses, an overwhelming majority indicated they fiercely oppose expanding the plazas. Consequently, we can safely conclude that the wider public does not want the car-free plazas to be expanded.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the city councilor's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It bases a generalization about a population on a sample that is systematically predisposed to hold a particular view on the issue in question.

Cevap

The correct answer identifies that the argument bases a generalization about a population on a sample that is systematically predisposed to hold a particular view on the issue in question.
The city councilor concludes that the 'wider public' opposes the plazas based entirely on a survey sent only to individuals with vehicle registration passes. People who own and drive vehicles are uniquely disadvantaged by car-free plazas because they lose driving space and parking access. Therefore, their views are highly unlikely to be representative of the general population, which includes pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users. The argument is fundamentally flawed because it relies on an unrepresentative, systematically biased sample.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and the premise of the argument.
Conclusion: The wider public does not want the car-free plazas expanded. Premise: An overwhelming majority of surveyed vehicle registration pass holders oppose the expansion.
Breaking the argument down into its structural components makes it easier to evaluate the relationship between the provided evidence and the final claim.
2
Evaluate the relationship between the sample group and the target population.
The sample consists exclusively of vehicle registration pass holders (car owners), while the conclusion makes a sweeping claim about the 'wider public'.
In any survey-based argument, the sample must be sufficiently representative of the target population for the conclusion to logically follow.
3
Identify any inherent bias in the sample regarding the specific issue.
Car owners are directly negatively impacted by car-free plazas due to a loss of driving and parking access. Thus, they are structurally more likely to oppose the policy than non-drivers.
If the sample group has a vested interest or systematic bias that differs from the general population, the survey results cannot be reliably projected onto everyone else.

Anahtar Kavram

Sampling Bias (Unrepresentative Sample)
Soru 1324Soru →

Historians analyzing ancient Mesopotamian city-states have noted that eras of significant architectural expansion consistently coincide with periods when a city-state's primary currency—a standardized grain measure—was widely circulated. Based on this correlation, the historians conclude that the implementation of a standardized currency directly stimulated the economic prosperity necessary to fund such massive architectural endeavors.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The initiation of massive architectural projects did not compel the creation of a standardized currency system to manage the complex logistics of compensating large workforces.

Cevap

The assumption that the initiation of massive architectural projects did not compel the creation of a standardized currency system.
The correct answer rules out the possibility of reverse causation. The argument observes a correlation between currency and architecture, and concludes that currency caused the architecture. For this conclusion to be valid, it must be true that the architectural projects didn't actually come first and necessitate the invention of the currency system. If we negate this option, it means the architecture caused the currency, which completely destroys the author's conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument elements.
Premise: Architectural expansion correlates with standardized currency. Conclusion: Standardized currency caused the prosperity needed for the architecture.
Deconstructing the argument separates the observed facts (correlation) from the author's interpretation (causation).
2
Determine the type of gap in reasoning.
The author jumps from a correlation between two phenomena to a definitive causal relationship (A caused B).
Recognizing this gap dictates what kind of assumption is required: one that bridges the gap or defends it against alternatives.
3
Anticipate necessary assumptions for causal arguments.
A necessary assumption must rule out alternate causes, rule out reverse causation, or ensure the data is reliable. In this case, we must assume the architectural expansion didn't cause the currency standardization.
If reverse causation is true (B caused A), the author's conclusion (A caused B) is destroyed.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to the strongest candidate.
Negating the correct answer yields: 'The initiation of massive architectural projects DID compel the creation of a standardized currency system.'
If this negated statement is true, it means the architecture caused the currency, directly contradicting and destroying the author's conclusion. This confirms it is a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Reverse Causation (Defender Assumption)
Soru 1325Soru →

City Planner: Critics argue that converting downtown commercial streets into pedestrian-only zones harms local retail economies by restricting vehicular access. However, a comprehensive review of pedestrian-only zones established nationwide over the last two decades demonstrates otherwise. Researchers analyzed the financial trajectories of the retail businesses currently operating within these zones. After controlling for regional economic trends and inflation, the data shows that these businesses experienced, on average, a 30 percent increase in both their profit margins and absolute net profits following the transition. Clearly, pedestrianizing commercial streets profoundly enhances retail profitability.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the city planner's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It bases a generalization about the economic impact of a policy on a sample that systematically omits entities that failed to survive that policy.

Cevap

The argument bases a generalization about the economic impact of a policy on a sample that systematically omits entities that failed to survive that policy.
The correct answer accurately identifies a severe sampling flaw known as survivorship bias. By restricting the economic review exclusively to businesses 'currently operating' in the pedestrian zones, the researchers systematically excluded any businesses that suffered financial ruin and closed due to the policy change. Thus, the sample is inherently biased and cannot logically support a general conclusion about the policy's overall impact on retail profitability.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the city planner's conclusion.
The conclusion is that pedestrianizing commercial streets profoundly enhances retail profitability.
Identifying the main conclusion is the required first step in evaluating any logical argument's structure.
2
Examine the premises supporting the conclusion.
The evidence relies on a review of retail businesses 'currently operating' within pedestrian-only zones, which show a 30 percent increase in profit margins and absolute net profits after controlling for regional trends.
Understanding the precise evidence and the parameters of the study reveals the structural limits of the argument.
3
Identify vulnerabilities or gaps between the premises and the conclusion.
The study exclusively evaluated businesses that are 'currently operating.' It excluded any businesses that went bankrupt, closed, or relocated immediately following the pedestrianization. This introduces a severe survivorship bias.
In sampling flawed arguments, the data subset usually excludes a critical demographic that would actively undermine the conclusion.
4
Select the option that accurately describes this specific sampling flaw.
The correct option identifies that the generalization is based on a sample omitting entities that failed to survive the policy change.
This abstract phrasing precisely matches the identified survivorship bias within the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Sampling and Survey Flaws (Survivorship Bias)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1326Soru →

Mayor: To attract more young families to our city, we must invest heavily in expanding our network of public parks. A comprehensive statewide survey reveals that the vast majority of young families cite access to ample green spaces as a primary factor when choosing a municipality in which to settle.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Prospective young families do not currently view the city's existing green spaces as fully adequate for their needs.

Cevap

Prospective young families do not currently view the city's existing green spaces as fully adequate for their needs.
The correct answer acts as a 'defender' assumption. The mayor claims that creating more parks will attract young families because they desire green spaces. However, this logic only holds if the city is currently lacking in green spaces from the perspective of those families. If the city already had perfectly adequate parks, expanding them would yield no additional demographic benefit based on the survey's findings. Therefore, the argument depends on the assumption that current green spaces are inadequate.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that expanding the network of public parks will attract more young families to the city.
This establishes the causal outcome the mayor believes the proposed investment will achieve.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The primary premise is a survey indicating that young families consider access to ample green spaces a primary factor in choosing where to live.
This shows the evidence the mayor uses to justify the proposed park expansion.
3
Locate the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The evidence shows young families want green spaces, and the conclusion says adding MORE parks will attract them. The gap is the assumption that the city does not already have enough parks to satisfy this desire.
A necessary assumption must bridge this gap or defend the argument against potential weaknesses.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the candidate answer choices.
Negating the correct statement yields: 'Prospective young families ALREADY view the city's existing green spaces as fully adequate.' If this is true, adding more parks would not act as a draw, destroying the mayor's argument.
The Negation Test definitively proves whether a statement is strictly necessary for the argument to hold.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defender Pattern)
Soru 1327Soru →

Maritime Analyst: Three years ago, several major shipping companies voluntarily installed novel hull-lubrication systems on a portion of their cargo fleets. A recent analysis shows that over the past two years, the vessels equipped with these systems consumed, on average, 12 percent less fuel per voyage than comparable vessels in the same fleets that were not equipped with the systems. This clearly demonstrates that the hull-lubrication systems are highly effective at reducing fuel consumption.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the maritime analyst's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The vessels equipped with the hull-lubrication systems were not operated at significantly lower average speeds than the unequipped vessels during the two-year period.

Cevap

The assumption that the equipped vessels were not operated at significantly lower average speeds than the unequipped vessels.
The argument concludes that hull-lubrication systems cause a reduction in fuel consumption based on the observation that vessels with the systems used less fuel. However, this relies on the assumption that no other factor—such as sailing speed—caused the reduction. If the equipped vessels were driven much slower, the speed reduction would explain the fuel savings, entirely undermining the analyst's conclusion. Therefore, the argument must assume that this alternative cause is not present.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the novel hull-lubrication systems are highly effective at reducing fuel consumption.
This is the analyst's main claim, signaled by the phrase 'This clearly demonstrates that...'
2
Identify the primary evidence (premise) supporting the conclusion.
The evidence is a correlation: vessels equipped with the systems consumed an average of 12 percent less fuel per voyage than comparable unequipped vessels.
The analyst uses this observed data to establish a causal relationship between the systems and the fuel savings.
3
Evaluate the logical gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that the hull-lubrication system is the actual cause of the fuel savings, failing to consider other potential differences in how the two groups of vessels were operated.
In causal arguments based on observation, there is always a risk that a third variable or alternate cause is responsible for the effect.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to the correct answer choice.
If we negate the correct choice (assuming they WERE operated at significantly lower speeds), the lower speeds would provide an alternative explanation for the fuel savings, destroying the conclusion that the systems were responsible.
A necessary assumption is one that, if proven false, causes the argument to collapse. Ruling out an alternate explanation is a classic 'defender' assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption - Defender (Ruling out alternate explanations for an observed effect)
Soru 1328Soru →

Wildlife Biologist: Recent tests reveal that urban coyotes exhibit baseline cortisol levels—a primary indicator of physiological stress—that are significantly higher than those of rural coyotes. Yet over the past decade, the number of pups born annually in the urban coyote population has increased dramatically. Clearly, elevated cortisol levels do not impede reproductive success in coyotes.

The wildlife biologist's argument relies on which of the following assumptions? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The elevated cortisol levels observed in the urban population are not confined exclusively to non-breeding coyotes.; The high baseline cortisol levels in urban coyotes are present during the specific times of year when the animals are mating and gestating.

Cevap

The argument depends on two assumptions: that the elevated cortisol is not isolated only in the non-breeding coyotes, and that the cortisol is actually present during the mating and gestating periods.
For the author to conclude that high cortisol does not impede reproduction based on the urban coyote population's birth rate, the author MUST assume that the high cortisol is actually interacting with the reproductive process. This requires two 'defender' assumptions: the stress cannot be isolated demographically (only in non-breeders) and it cannot be isolated temporally (only present outside of mating season). If either of these boundaries existed, the argument's evidence would be irrelevant to its conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core components of the argument.
Premise: Urban coyotes have high cortisol and produce many pups. Conclusion: High cortisol does not impede reproductive success.
Deconstructing the stimulus is required to isolate the logical gap between the evidence provided and the absolute claim made in the conclusion.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the reasoning.
The author assumes that the physiological state (high cortisol) is actually interacting with the biological process (reproduction).
If a trait is observed in a population, it cannot be assumed to affect a specific mechanism unless it is present in the individuals performing that mechanism, at the time they are performing it.
3
Evaluate the choices using the Negation Test.
Negating the correct options severs the connection between the high cortisol and the act of reproducing, which destroys the author's ability to draw a conclusion about their relationship.
The Negation Test is the most definitive way to verify if an assumption is strictly logically necessary.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defender Strategy)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1329Soru →

A recent municipal review of urban residential areas revealed that neighborhoods with a higher density of community gardens have significantly lower rates of property crime. City planners concluded that the presence of community gardens must foster social cohesion and neighborhood watchfulness, which in turn actively deters criminal activity.

Determine whether the following statement regarding the argument is true or false: A necessary assumption of the city planners' reasoning is that neighborhoods with preexisting lower rates of property crime do not systematically attract more civic funding and volunteer resources for community garden projects than neighborhoods with higher crime rates.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The correct answer is True because the argument infers a specific causal relationship (gardens cause low crime) directly from a correlation. For this causal conclusion to be valid, alternative explanations for the correlation must be ruled out. The statement successfully rules out the alternate explanation of reverse causality (that low crime causes the development of more gardens), acting as a logically necessary defender assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core components: the premise and the conclusion.
Premise: There is a correlation between high community garden density and low property crime. Conclusion: Community gardens actively deter criminal activity.
Deconstructing the argument isolates the gap between the evidence provided and the causal claim made.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the reasoning.
The argument assumes a direct causal relationship based solely on a correlation, leaving it vulnerable to alternative explanations such as reverse causality or third-variable confounders.
Recognizing the causal flaw is essential to identifying what assumptions must be made to defend the conclusion.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed statement.
Negated statement: 'Neighborhoods with lower rates of property crime DO systematically attract more resources for gardens.' This alternative explanation destroys the conclusion that gardens cause the reduction in crime.
If the logical opposite of a candidate assumption undermines the conclusion, the original statement is a necessary defender assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1330Soru →

Consider the following argument: Over the past decade, city statistics show a strong correlation between the number of ice cream cones sold and the number of shark attacks at local beaches. Clearly, eating ice cream makes a person more attractive to sharks.

The logical flaw in this argument is that it mistakes a necessary condition for a sufficient condition.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The argument actually commits a causal reasoning error (assuming correlation implies causation) rather than a conditional logic error (mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient one). Therefore, the statement describing the flaw is false.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the reasoning in the provided argument.
The argument observes a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, and incorrectly concludes that eating ice cream causes shark attacks.
Identifying the argument's premises and conclusion is the first step in diagnosing its logical vulnerability.
2
Identify the actual logical flaw committed by the argument.
The argument confuses correlation with causation. It ignores the likelihood of a third variable (like warmer weather leading to both more ice cream sales and more people swimming) causing both phenomena.
Knowing the actual flaw allows for an accurate evaluation of the provided statement.
3
Evaluate the statement provided.
The statement claims the flaw is mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. This describes a conditional logic error, not a causal logic error.
Comparing the actual flaw to the stated flaw determines whether the statement is true or false.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Correlation vs. Causation
Soru 1331Soru →

Mayor: The city's newly enacted parking tax will undoubtedly improve the quality of life for downtown residents. Statistical models confirm that the tax will significantly decrease the number of vehicles entering the downtown area each day. Furthermore, any decrease in downtown vehicle traffic inevitably leads to a reduction in local air pollution.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any reduction in local air pollution improves the quality of life for downtown residents.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that any reduction in local air pollution improves the quality of life for downtown residents.
The argument relies on a straightforward chain of conditional logic. The premises establish that the tax will reduce traffic, and that reduced traffic reduces air pollution. In order to properly draw the conclusion that the tax improves the quality of life, there must be a logical link connecting the end of the evidence chain (reduced air pollution) to the conclusion (improved quality of life). The correct answer provides this exact missing link as a universal rule, making the conclusion logically inescapable.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: The new parking tax will improve the quality of life for downtown residents.
This is the ultimate claim the Mayor is trying to prove with the subsequent evidence.
2
Identify the given premises.
Premise 1: The tax decreases vehicles. Premise 2: Decreasing vehicles reduces air pollution.
We must accept these statements as true and determine what they logically yield.
3
Trace the logical chain and pinpoint the gap.
The chain is: Tax -> Decrease Vehicles -> Reduce Air Pollution. The gap exists between 'Reduce Air Pollution' and 'Improve Quality of Life'.
A sufficient assumption question requires finding the exact missing link that connects the end of the premise chain directly to the conclusion.
4
Select the option that perfectly bridges this gap.
The statement 'Any reduction in local air pollution improves the quality of life' acts as the required bridge (Reduce Air Pollution -> Improve Quality of Life).
Adding this conditional statement to the premises guarantees the conclusion 100%.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions via Formal Logic Chains
Soru 1332Soru →

Consider the following argument.

Marine Biologist: To restore the local sea otter population, we must restrict commercial fishing in the bay. Commercial fishing depletes the population of sea urchins, which are the primary food source for sea otters in this region, so limiting fishing will lead to an increase in otter numbers.

Statement: The marine biologist's argument logically requires the assumption that restricting commercial fishing in the bay will succeed in increasing the population of sea urchins.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The argument inherently requires the assumption that limiting fishing will successfully increase the sea urchin population.
The statement correctly identifies an unstated premise strictly required by the argument. The argument's entire causal chain depends on the fishing restriction actually restoring the urchin population; without this taking place, the conclusion that otter numbers will increase cannot logically follow.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core of the argument.
Premise: Commercial fishing depletes urchins (otter food). Conclusion: Limiting fishing will increase otter numbers.
Understanding the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion is the first step in finding the assumption.
2
Apply the Negation Technique to the given statement.
Negated statement: Restricting commercial fishing will NOT succeed in increasing the population of sea urchins.
The Negation Technique tests if an assumption is strictly necessary by seeing if its opposite destroys the argument.
3
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the conclusion.
If the urchin population does not increase, the otters will not gain their primary food source, and their numbers will not increase. The conclusion is destroyed.
Because the negated statement completely undermines the argument's conclusion, the original statement is confirmed as a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions via the Negation Technique
Soru 1333Soru →

Match each argumentative passage (left) to the abstract description of the specific ad hominem flaw it commits (right).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Tech CEO Aris Thorne argues that society must adopt strict regulations on smartphone usage to combat declining attention spans. But Thorne himself admits to spending over six hours a day on his own social media platforms. Therefore, his argument for regulation is entirely without merit.
Dr. Vance's comprehensive study concludes that the proposed underground railway is structurally unfeasible and will collapse within a decade. However, we should disregard her findings. She is a major shareholder in the rival above-ground tram company, so she clearly stands to gain financially if the railway project fails.
Professor Lin has published a lengthy critique of my interpretation of the Bronze Age collapse, claiming my timeline ignores crucial geological data. But Lin is famously abrasive, has alienated half his department, and lacks basic professional courtesy. Thus, his critique of my timeline can be safely ignored.
The new curriculum standard emphasizing collaborative problem-solving should be rejected outright. It was championed by the Citizens for Progressive Education, a group whose founding members were recently indicted for embezzling public funds.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The passages map directly to four distinct Ad Hominem sub-categories: the Tech CEO passage matches the behavioral contradiction description (Tu Quoque); the Dr. Vance passage matches the conflict of interest description (Circumstantial Bias); the Professor Lin passage matches the professional decorum description (Abusive); and the curriculum standard passage matches the disreputable organization description (Guilt by Association).
Each passage illustrates a distinct sub-category of the Ad Hominem fallacy. By precisely matching the narrative mechanism of the source attack (hypocrisy, financial bias, bad manners, or criminal association) to its corresponding abstract LSAT description, we accurately identify the specific logical flaw committed in each argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Tech CEO argument to identify the precise nature of the source attack.
The argument dismisses a claim because the speaker's own habits (spending six hours on social media) contradict their message (regulating smartphones).
Identifying the specific mechanism of the flaw—hypocrisy—allows us to match it to the description involving 'behavior contradicting tenets'.
2
Analyze the Dr. Vance argument for its core logical misstep.
The argument ignores empirical structural data and attacks the author's financial investments (shares in a rival tram company).
This isolates the 'vested interest' mechanism, separating it from general character attacks, which matches the 'conflict of interest' description.
3
Evaluate the Professor Lin argument's method of rebuttal.
The speaker ignores geological data and instead complains about the professor's abrasiveness and alienation of colleagues.
This confirms a purely abusive, personality-driven attack, perfectly aligning with the description regarding a 'lack of professional decorum'.
4
Examine the curriculum standard argument's reasoning.
A policy is rejected not because of its content, but because of the criminal background of the founders of the group supporting it.
This highlights the 'guilt by association' fallacy, matching the description about 'an organization associated with disreputable activities'.

Anahtar Kavram

Ad Hominem (Source Argument) Sub-categories
Soru 1334Soru →

University administrator: To determine how our alumni feel about the recent shift toward online-only summer courses, we analyzed responses from our annual donor satisfaction survey, which was mailed exclusively to alumni who contributed $500 or more to the university last year. Over 80 percent of respondents indicated they strongly support the shift. Therefore, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of our alumni favor the transition to online-only summer courses.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: generalizes about the attitudes of an entire group based on the opinions of a subset that is likely unrepresentative

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument generalizes about an entire group based on an unrepresentative subset.
The correct answer accurately diagnoses the sampling bias in the argument. The administrator is trying to draw a conclusion about the entire alumni population, but uses evidence derived exclusively from a highly specific, non-random subset: alumni who donated at least $500. This group is likely to be systematically different from the broader alumni base (e.g., they may be wealthier, older, or more supportive of the administration's decisions in general), making the sample fundamentally unrepresentative.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'it is clear that the overwhelming majority of our alumni favor the transition to online-only summer courses.'
Finding the conclusion clarifies exactly what the author is trying to prove.
2
Identify the premise (evidence) supporting the conclusion.
The premise is that over 80 percent of respondents to a survey sent to alumni who contributed $500 or more support the shift.
Understanding the evidence is necessary to see the gap between the premise and the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the premise and the conclusion to find the logical gap.
The evidence relies entirely on alumni who made significant financial donations, but the conclusion makes a claim about all alumni. Financial donors are a self-selected, highly engaged subset whose opinions likely differ from the general alumni population.
Recognizing this gap isolates the specific vulnerability (flaw) in the reasoning.
4
Match the identified flaw with the correct abstract description in the choices.
The flaw is an unrepresentative sample, which perfectly matches the option describing a generalization based on a likely unrepresentative subset.
LSAT Flaw questions require mapping your specific critique of the argument to the generalized, abstract language used in the correct answer choice.

Anahtar Kavram

Unrepresentative Sample / Survey Bias
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1335Soru →

The following arguments each rely on an unstated conditional premise to bridge their evidence to their conclusion. Match each argument with the strictly necessary conditional assumption that logically completes its reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The rare alpine orchids require soil with a highly specific mineral composition to survive in the biodome. Since the researchers have successfully synthesized soil that perfectly mimics this composition, it is guaranteed that the orchids will survive.
The city council refuses to raise commercial property taxes this fiscal year. Therefore, the new urban zoning initiative will fail to reduce downtown traffic congestion.
A corporation is subject to federal antitrust scrutiny only when its domestic market share exceeds forty percent. Apex Industries recently acquired its largest competitor, bringing its market share to forty-five percent. Consequently, Apex Industries will now face federal antitrust scrutiny.
An action can be considered morally praiseworthy only if it is performed entirely out of a sense of duty. The altruistic actions performed by our local volunteers are motivated by deep empathy for others. Therefore, the actions of these volunteers are not morally praiseworthy.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Match the orchid argument with the assumption making synthesized soil sufficient for survival; match the traffic argument with the assumption making tax raises necessary for reducing congestion; match the antitrust argument with the assumption making market share sufficient for scrutiny; match the altruism argument with the assumption making empathy mutually exclusive with duty.
Each correct pairing provides the exact formal logical bridge required to make the conclusion of the corresponding argument valid, repairing illegal reversals, linking disparate terms, and forming logically sound contrapositives.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the alpine orchids argument.
Identified the argument treats a necessary condition (mineral soil) as sufficient. Matches with the premise establishing that providing the soil guarantees survival.
To prove the conclusion that the orchids will survive, the necessary condition must be formally elevated to a sufficient condition.
2
Analyze the traffic congestion argument.
Identified a missing link between not raising taxes and not reducing congestion. Matches with the premise stating congestion cannot be reduced unless taxes are raised.
The conclusion relies on the contrapositive of the missing premise: If congestion is reduced, taxes are raised. Since taxes are not raised, congestion is not reduced.
3
Analyze the antitrust scrutiny argument.
Identified an illegal reversal involving 'only when'. Matches with the premise stating every corporation with over forty percent market share faces scrutiny.
The argument provides the necessary condition (forty-five percent share) but illicitly concludes the result. The assumption must dictate that the condition is sufficient to guarantee the result.
4
Analyze the moral praiseworthiness argument.
Identified two unconnected sufficient terms (empathy and duty). Matches with the premise stating empathy and duty are mutually exclusive.
To conclude an action is not praiseworthy because it lacks duty (since it was driven by empathy), the author must assume that having empathy means the action was not done entirely out of duty.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying unstated conditional premises and recognizing illegal reversals (confusing necessary and sufficient conditions) in logical arguments.
Soru 1336Soru →

City Councilmember: The upcoming renovation of the historic downtown theater will utilize only locally sourced building materials. Therefore, the theater renovation will significantly boost the region's economy.

Which of the following statements function as valid supporter assumptions required to bridge the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Utilizing only locally sourced building materials guarantees a significant boost to a region's economy.; An initiative that does not significantly boost the region's economy does not utilize exclusively locally sourced building materials.

Cevap

The correct statements are the one affirming that utilizing local materials guarantees an economic boost, and its logical contrapositive, which states that failing to boost the economy means exclusive local materials were not used.
To prove the conclusion that the renovation will boost the economy based solely on the fact that it uses local materials, one must assume that using local materials guarantees an economic boost. One correct option states this directly. The other correct option states the exact same logical rule in contrapositive form: if the economy wasn't boosted, local materials weren't exclusively used.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premise and conclusion.
Premise: The renovation will use only locally sourced building materials. Conclusion: The renovation will significantly boost the economy.
Separating the core components of the argument is necessary to spot the logical jump.
2
Identify the rogue elements (the logical gap).
The premise introduces 'locally sourced building materials', but the conclusion introduces a new concept: 'significantly boost the region's economy'.
A supporter assumption must explicitly connect the new concept in the conclusion back to the evidence in the premise.
3
Formulate the missing link and evaluate the options.
The necessary link is 'locally sourced materials -> boosts economy'. We must find options that match this logic directly or via a valid contrapositive ('not boosted -> not locally sourced').
Multiple phrasing variations can express the exact same logical relationship required to validate the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

In a gap-bridging (supporter) assumption question, the correct answer explicitly connects a 'rogue' element in the conclusion to an element established in the premises. This link can be expressed as a direct conditional statement or its logical contrapositive.
Soru 1337Soru →

Nutritionist: The new energy bar, PowerBite, consists of 25% pure whey protein, whereas our current best-selling bar, MaxEnergy, consists of only 15% whey protein. Since whey protein is the primary driver of muscle recovery after strenuous workouts, athletes looking to maximize their muscle recovery should immediately switch from eating MaxEnergy bars to eating PowerBite bars.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the nutritionist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A single MaxEnergy bar weighs three times as much as a single PowerBite bar.

Cevap

The option stating that a single MaxEnergy bar weighs three times as much as a single PowerBite bar.
The nutritionist's argument relies on a classic 'percentage versus amount' flaw. The argument assumes that because PowerBite has a higher concentration of protein (25% compared to 15%), it will deliver more total protein to the athlete. However, if a MaxEnergy bar is three times larger than a PowerBite bar, an athlete eating one MaxEnergy bar will consume significantly more total whey protein than they would by eating one PowerBite bar. Because switching to PowerBite would actually decrease their total protein intake, this fact completely undermines the conclusion that switching will maximize recovery.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
Athletes looking to maximize muscle recovery should switch from MaxEnergy to PowerBite.
This is the ultimate recommendation the nutritionist is trying to prove.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
PowerBite is 25% protein, MaxEnergy is 15% protein, and protein drives muscle recovery.
These are the facts provided to justify the recommendation.
3
Find the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The nutritionist confuses a proportion (percentage of protein) with an absolute quantity (total grams of protein).
A higher percentage does not guarantee a higher total amount if the overall sizes of the items being compared are different.
4
Select the option that exploits this logical gap.
The option stating MaxEnergy weighs three times as much directly addresses this gap.
If MaxEnergy is three times larger, 15% of its large weight provides more total protein than 25% of PowerBite's small weight, proving athletes would actually get less protein by switching.

Anahtar Kavram

Differentiating between proportions/percentages and absolute quantities in arguments.
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 1338Soru →

For each logical argument presented, identify the specific piece of additional evidence that provides the strongest logical support for its main conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Meteorology: Farms in the western valley that employed a new cloud-seeding technique received 20% more rainfall this season than their historical average. Therefore, the cloud-seeding technique effectively increases precipitation.
Workplace Tech: A software company found that programmers using a newly designed ergonomic keyboard write code 15% faster than those using standard keyboards. Thus, the new keyboard design improves coding speed.
Linguistics: A newly discovered 12th-century text from the isolated Mountain Kingdom contains several words adopted from the Coastal Empire's language. This indicates that the Mountain Kingdom engaged in extensive economic trade with the Coastal Empire.
Zoology: Researchers observed that migratory birds resting in the Northern Wetlands have a significantly higher survival rate during their journey than those resting in the Southern Marshes. Therefore, the Northern Wetlands provide a more nutrient-rich food supply.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings align each argument with the evidence that directly resolves its specific logical vulnerability: ruling out alternative weather causes, eliminating selection bias in typists, bridging the conceptual gap to 'trade', and providing a causal mechanism for bird nutrition.
Each correct piece of evidence successfully targets the unstated assumption or vulnerability in its corresponding argument. By either ruling out alternate causes (as in the weather and typing scenarios), bridging a concept shift (in the language scenario), or establishing a clear mechanism (in the bird scenario), the evidence makes each conclusion significantly more likely to be true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Meteorology argument to identify its underlying assumption.
The argument assumes a causal relationship between cloud-seeding and increased rain. It requires evidence that a natural weather anomaly didn't cause the increase.
Causal claims based on historical comparisons must rule out alternative concurrent causes.
2
Evaluate the Workplace Tech argument's vulnerability.
The argument claims the keyboard causes faster typing, ignoring that fast typists might self-select the new tool. Evidence of random assignment perfectly addresses this.
Eliminating selection bias is a primary way to strengthen observational causal claims.
3
Assess the leap in the Linguistics argument.
The argument leaps from 'borrowed language' to 'economic trade'. Evidence showing the borrowed words are commerce-related bridges this gap.
When a conclusion introduces a new specific concept (trade) not present in the premise (language), a strengthener must link the two.
4
Identify the causal gap in the Zoology argument.
The argument attributes survival to 'nutrient-rich food' without evidence. Confirming the presence of uniquely nutritious, energy-dense plants in the specific area bolsters this.
Providing factual backing for an assumed mechanism strengthens a causal explanation.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying and resolving logical gaps (alternate causes, selection bias, concept shifts) to strengthen arguments.
Soru 1339Soru →

Match each argument below to the piece of new evidence that most directly weakens its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Mayor Smith's popularity must be declining because attendance at her town hall meetings is much lower this year.
City roads are more dangerous than rural roads because a significantly larger total number of car accidents happen in the city.
The new gym will be highly profitable because it is opening right next to a busy organic grocery store.
The herbal tea cures insomnia, as all participants in a recent study reported better sleep after drinking it for a week.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Mayor Smith matches to online broadcasts; City roads match to more miles driven; New gym matches to outdoor preference; Herbal tea matches to prescription medication.
Each correct match directly exploits a specific logical flaw in the argument's reasoning. By introducing alternate explanations, distinguishing totals from rates, attacking unwarranted business assumptions, or introducing confounding variables, the new evidence demonstrates that the original conclusions do not necessarily follow from their premises.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument regarding Mayor Smith's popularity.
The argument assumes that low physical attendance at meetings definitively proves low popularity.
Identifying the unstated assumption is the first step to finding a weakness.
2
Find the evidence that provides an alternative reason for the low attendance.
The fact that meetings are now broadcast online explains the low physical attendance without requiring a drop in popularity.
An alternate explanation successfully weakens a correlative claim.
3
Analyze the argument regarding city roads and find the structural flaw.
The argument confuses a high total number of accidents with a higher rate of danger. The evidence that city drivers drive millions more miles addresses this total vs. rate flaw.
Understanding the difference between absolute numbers and proportions is crucial to weakening statistical arguments.
4
Analyze the gym and herbal tea arguments to find their respective weakening evidence.
The gym argument is weakened by evidence that the adjacent store's customers dislike indoor gyms. The tea argument is weakened by the introduction of an alternate cause (prescription medication).
Each piece of correct evidence successfully severs the assumed logical link between the given premises and the final conclusions.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Arguments: Weakening
Soru 1340Soru →

Consider the following argument:

An independent researcher wanted to determine the average daily screen time of teenagers. The researcher recruited 500 teenagers who were attending an annual weekend video gaming convention and tracked their screen time for a month. The results showed an average of 8 hours of screen time per day. The researcher concluded that teenagers, on average, spend 8 hours per day looking at screens.

Evaluate the following statement about the argument as true or false:

The primary logical flaw in the researcher's argument is that the sample size of 500 is too small to draw a reliable statistical conclusion about the general population of teenagers.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false because it misidentifies the logical flaw. The argument's vulnerability lies in its reliance on an unrepresentative sample (selection bias). Teenagers attending a video gaming convention are practically guaranteed to have higher-than-average screen times compared to the general population. Even if the sample size were 50,000, the conclusion would still be flawed. Therefore, the issue is not the sample size (500 is typically mathematically sufficient), but rather the biased nature of the sample source.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the scope of the argument's conclusion relative to its premises.
The conclusion generalizes about all teenagers based on data collected from a sample of 500 teenagers attending a gaming convention.
Identifying the gap between the evidence provided and the broad conclusion drawn reveals potential logical flaws.
2
Identify the primary vulnerability in the argument's sampling methodology.
The sample group (gaming convention attendees) is highly likely to have significantly more screen time than the average teenager, making the sample fundamentally unrepresentative.
A representative sample is required to draw valid generalizations about a larger target population.
3
Evaluate the provided statement against the identified flaw.
The statement inaccurately claims the flaw is a small sample size. In reality, 500 is generally a sufficient sample size if randomized; the actual fatal flaw is selection bias.
Distinguishing between sample size (quantity) and sample representativeness (quality) is necessary to accurately determine the statement's truth value.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing between sample size and sample representativeness
ÖncekiSayfa 67 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin