Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 1381Soru →

Any oil painting that is to be successfully restored must first be thoroughly cleaned. Furthermore, an oil painting can be thoroughly cleaned only if its original varnish is completely dissolved. The original varnish on the newly discovered portrait cannot be completely dissolved. Therefore, the newly discovered portrait cannot be successfully restored.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A commercial development project can be approved by the city council only if it passes an environmental impact review. Any project that passes an environmental impact review must include a comprehensive traffic management plan. The proposed shopping plaza does not include a comprehensive traffic management plan. Thus, the proposed shopping plaza cannot be approved by the city council.

Cevap

The argument concerning the commercial development project and the traffic management plan.
The correct answer perfectly mirrors the valid deductive structure of the original stimulus. The stimulus establishes a chain of necessary conditions (Restored -> Cleaned -> Varnish Dissolved), introduces a specific case where the final necessary condition is unmet (~Varnish Dissolved), and validly concludes that the sufficient condition cannot occur (~Restored). The correct option establishes an identical chain (Approved -> Review -> Traffic Plan), introduces a case where the final necessary condition is unmet (~Traffic Plan), and validly concludes that the sufficient condition cannot occur (~Approved).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the formal logical structure of the stimulus.
Restored -> Cleaned. Cleaned -> Varnish Dissolved. The portrait is NOT Varnish Dissolved. Conclusion: Therefore, the portrait is NOT Restored.
Mapping the conditional statements reveals the underlying skeleton of the argument: A -> B, B -> C. ~C. Therefore, ~A.
2
Identify the type and validity of the reasoning in the stimulus.
The argument is a valid application of chain conditional reasoning followed by modus tollens (denying the consequent). All premises use absolute certainty (any, must).
To find a parallel argument, the correct answer must also be fully valid, use the same logical mechanics, and match the absolute degree of certainty.
3
Evaluate the options to find the exact matching structure, regardless of subject matter.
The correct option diagrams as: Approved -> Environmental Review. Environmental Review -> Traffic Plan. The plaza is NOT Traffic Plan. Conclusion: Therefore, the plaza is NOT Approved.
This is a perfect structural duplicate of A -> B, B -> C, ~C, therefore ~A, maintaining absolute certainty throughout.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Valid Structure (Chain Conditionals and Modus Tollens)
Soru 1382Soru →

At the start of the fiscal year, a premium coffee brand transitioned to entirely eco-friendly, biodegradable packaging. Prior consumer surveys overwhelmingly indicated this move would increase customer loyalty and attract environmentally conscious buyers. However, six months after the transition, the brand's total sales volume had plummeted by 35%35\%, even though the retail price of the coffee remained unchanged and overall market demand for premium coffee grew.

Statement: The additional information that the new biodegradable packaging fails to seal out oxygen, causing the coffee beans to become noticeably stale within days of purchase, successfully resolves the apparent discrepancy.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement evaluates to true because the proposed additional fact perfectly bridges the two conflicting premises. The paradox is that a highly anticipated, eco-friendly change resulted in a massive loss of sales. The new information reveals a critical flaw in the new packaging (it ruins the coffee). This explains why consumers stopped buying the product despite liking the eco-friendly concept, successfully resolving the discrepancy.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the apparent discrepancy in the stimulus.
Consumer surveys predicted the eco-friendly packaging would increase loyalty and attract buyers, but sales actually plummeted by 35%35\% in a growing market.
Understanding the exact nature of the paradox is required before attempting to resolve it.
2
Analyze the proposed bridging premise.
The new packaging fails to seal out oxygen, making the coffee noticeably stale very quickly.
We must determine the effect of this new information on the conflicting facts.
3
Evaluate if the new premise reconciles the conflict.
Yes. While the eco-friendly aspect is attractive, the rapid staling of the coffee destroys the product's fundamental value, completely explaining why actual sales dropped despite the positive environmental intentions.
A valid resolution must explain how both original premises can be logically true simultaneously.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Conflicting Premises by identifying an overriding causal mechanism.
Soru 1383Soru →

Botanist: To survive in the hyper-arid Atacama Desert, the Copiapoa cactus relies exclusively on regular coastal fog for hydration. However, recent atmospheric warming has permanently shifted this fog condensation layer to significantly higher altitudes, completely bypassing the low-lying valleys where the native Copiapoa populations are rooted. Because these cacti cannot survive for more than a few months without moisture, the only way to prevent the extinction of the Copiapoa in the wild is to artificially relocate the remaining populations to these higher elevations.

Evaluate the following statement: The botanist's argument depends on the assumption that artificially relocating the remaining Copiapoa populations to higher elevations will successfully prevent their extinction in the wild.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The proposed assumption represents a sufficient condition (relocation guarantees survival), whereas the argument's conclusion only establishes relocation as a necessary condition (relocation is the 'only way' to survive). According to the Negation Test, if we assume relocation will NOT guarantee survival, the conclusion that it is the 'only way' to survive remains perfectly intact. Therefore, the argument does not logically depend on this assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core conclusion.
Conclusion: The only way to prevent the extinction of the Copiapoa in the wild is to artificially relocate the remaining populations to higher elevations.
Isolating the exact logical force of the conclusion is required to determine what the argument relies upon.
2
Analyze the logical parameters of the conclusion.
The phrase 'the only way' establishes relocation as a necessary condition for preventing extinction. It does not establish it as a sufficient condition.
Understanding the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions is critical for evaluating high-level LSAT assumptions.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed assumption in the statement.
Negated assumption: Artificially relocating the populations to higher elevations will NOT successfully prevent their extinction.
A necessary assumption must destroy the core argument when logically negated.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated assumption on the conclusion.
The negated assumption does not invalidate the conclusion. Relocation can still logically be the 'only way' to prevent extinction, even if it ultimately proves insufficient to save the species.
If negating an assumption leaves the conclusion logically intact, the assumption is not strictly necessary for the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing between necessary and sufficient conditions when identifying unstated premises (Negation Test).
Soru 1384Soru →

Philosopher: A genuinely altruistic act requires that the agent act solely for the benefit of another, devoid of any subconscious or conscious anticipation of a personal payoff. Yet, neurological studies demonstrate that when humans assist others in distress, their brains consistently release neurotransmitters that induce a profound sense of psychological well-being. Because humans are neurologically conditioned to expect this internal sensation when performing charitable acts, we must conclude that humans are incapable of genuine altruism.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The internal sensation of psychological well-being induced by neurotransmitter release qualifies as a personal payoff.

Cevap

The internal sensation of psychological well-being induced by neurotransmitter release qualifies as a personal payoff.
The argument relies on a subtle shift in terminology. The premises establish that humans expect a 'profound sense of psychological well-being,' but the conclusion claims humans fail the test for altruism because they anticipate a 'personal payoff.' For the conclusion to logically follow, the author must assume that the psychological well-being they expect is, in fact, a form of personal payoff. Logically negating this statement breaks the argument: if the well-being is not a personal payoff, then anticipating it does not disqualify the act from being genuinely altruistic.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the main conclusion and the premises supporting it.
Conclusion: Humans are incapable of genuine altruism. Premises: Altruism requires no anticipation of a personal payoff. Humans are neurologically conditioned to expect psychological well-being when helping others.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to spot logical gaps between the provided evidence and the final conclusion.
2
Identify the logical gap or concept shift between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises discuss the expectation of 'psychological well-being', but the conclusion relies on the condition of anticipating a 'personal payoff'.
In necessary assumption questions, subtle changes in terminology often indicate the unstated premise that the author is taking for granted.
3
Apply the Negation Test to candidate answers to see which one destroys the argument when logically negated.
Negating the correct statement yields: 'Psychological well-being does NOT qualify as a personal payoff.' If this is true, expecting well-being does not violate the rule against expecting a payoff, and the argument collapses.
The Negation Test is the definitive method for confirming whether an assumption is strictly necessary for the conclusion to follow.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying a bridge assumption that connects the specific evidence provided in the premises to the shifted language of the conclusion.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1385Soru →

Read the following argument:

Any regulatory policy that restricts individual liberties is justified only if it prevents a significant public harm. The newly proposed zoning ordinance will undeniably restrict property owners' liberties. However, this ordinance was designed strictly to increase local tax revenues rather than to address any significant public harm. Therefore, the newly proposed zoning ordinance is not justified.

Statement: The argument's conclusion follows logically if it is assumed that a regulatory policy cannot prevent a significant public harm unless it was explicitly designed to address one.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is true because it provides the exact conditional contrapositive needed to bridge the argument's conceptual gap. It connects the premise (the policy lacks the intent to address harm) to the rule's necessary condition (the policy fails to actually prevent harm), thereby guaranteeing the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the conditional rule established in the first sentence.
Rule: If a policy restricts liberties (RL), then (Justified (J) → Prevents Significant Public Harm (PSPH)). Contrapositive: If RL, and NOT PSPH → NOT J.
Identifying the formal logic relationships dictated by 'only if' is mandatory to evaluate the structural validity of the conclusion.
2
Analyze the premises provided specifically about the zoning ordinance.
Premise A: The ordinance restricts liberties (RL). Premise B: The ordinance is NOT designed to address a significant public harm (NOT DPSPH).
We must isolate the exact evidence the author relies upon to attempt to trigger the conclusion.
3
Identify the conclusion and pinpoint the logical gap.
Conclusion: The ordinance is NOT justified (NOT J). The gap exists between the premise 'NOT designed to address harm' (intent) and the required trigger 'does NOT prevent harm' (effect).
To prove NOT J using the rule from Step 1, the argument must prove NOT PSPH. The author improperly assumes NOT DPSPH is sufficient to prove NOT PSPH.
4
Translate the proposed statement and evaluate its logical impact on the argument.
Statement: 'Cannot prevent harm (PSPH) unless designed to do so (DPSPH)' translates to PSPH → DPSPH. The contrapositive is NOT DPSPH → NOT PSPH. Applying this to our premise yields NOT PSPH, which definitively proves NOT J.
We must test if the statement functions as a mathematically sound sufficient assumption that completely seals the logical gap.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Intent and Effect through Sufficient Assumptions (Only If / Unless)
Soru 1386Soru →

Match each of the following arguments regarding a city transit authority's transition to electric buses (Left) with the newly discovered piece of evidence (Right) that most effectively strengthens its specific conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Since the deployment of electric buses on Route 5, daily passenger volume has increased by 15 percent. Commuters must therefore prefer the quieter, smoother ride provided by electric vehicles.
The electric buses have required mechanical servicing far less frequently than the diesel buses they replaced. Thus, electric powertrains are inherently more durable than traditional diesel engines.
Particulate pollution along Route 5 has dropped significantly since the electric fleet began operations. This proves that the retired diesel buses were the primary source of airborne contaminants in the area.
Traffic collisions involving buses on Route 5 have decreased by 30 percent since the transition. Consequently, electric buses must be structurally safer and easier to maneuver in traffic.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The passenger volume argument pairs with the ticket prices evidence; the mechanical servicing argument pairs with the bus age evidence; the pollution argument pairs with the constant traffic emissions evidence; the collision argument pairs with the driver cohort evidence.
In causal reasoning, an argument is logically strengthened when a plausible alternative cause for the observed effect is eliminated. Because all four arguments share the same contextual scenario, surface-level keyword matching is ineffective. Instead, each correct match pairs a specific conclusion with a premise that directly neutralizes its most critical confounding variable.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the passenger volume argument to identify its causal gap.
The argument assumes ride quality caused the ridership increase, ignoring other potential incentives.
Matching it with the evidence that ticket prices and schedules remained unchanged strengthens the claim by ruling out these prominent economic alternatives.
2
Examine the mechanical servicing argument's assumption regarding durability.
The argument assumes engine type, rather than vehicle age, is the reason for reduced maintenance.
Matching it with the evidence that the diesel buses were newer than the electric ones strongly bolsters the claim by showing the electric buses performed better despite an age disadvantage.
3
Evaluate the pollution argument's causal claim.
It assumes the bus switch was the sole reason for improved air quality, ignoring other local factors.
Matching it with the evidence that other emissions remained steady strengthens the argument by isolating the bus fleet as the single variable responsible for the change.
4
Assess the collision reduction argument.
It assumes the vehicles themselves are safer, ignoring the human element of driving.
Matching it with the evidence that the drivers and their training were identical rules out improved human performance as the cause, heavily supporting the vehicle safety conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening causal arguments by systematically ruling out alternative explanations and isolating the causal variable.
Soru 1387Soru →

In a bid to reduce employee burnout, the consulting firm Vanguard Partners replaced its standard policy of 20 days of paid vacation per year with a policy allowing unlimited paid time off. The firm's executives expected that employees would take more time off to recharge. However, one year after the policy change, data showed that the average number of vacation days taken per employee had decreased by 25 percent. Paradoxically, the firm's internal surveys simultaneously revealed a significant decrease in burnout and a marked improvement in overall employee well-being compared to the previous year.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Under the previous system, employees often had to use their allotted vacation days to cover minor daily scheduling conflicts or short personal errands, which are now accommodated informally without being recorded as official time off.

Cevap

The statement explaining that minor personal errands were previously counted as formal vacation days, but are now accommodated informally.
The correct answer perfectly resolves the paradox by showing that the conflict is partially based on how a 'vacation day' is categorized. Under the old system, employees had to burn their limited vacation days for minor errands. The unlimited policy allows them to handle these errands informally. Therefore, the *recorded* number of full vacation days dropped, explaining the statistical decrease. Concurrently, removing the anxiety of 'wasting' limited vacation on brief appointments explains the marked reduction in burnout and improved well-being.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to identify the two conflicting facts.
Fact 1: The average number of recorded vacation days per employee decreased by 25%. Fact 2: Employee burnout decreased and well-being markedly improved.
Resolving a paradox requires a clear understanding of exactly which two phenomena appear to contradict each other.
2
Formulate a prephrase for what the correct answer must achieve.
The correct answer must explain how taking officially fewer vacation days can coexist with, or directly contribute to, an improvement in employee well-being and a reduction in burnout.
Without a specific prephrase, distractors that explain only one side of the paradox will appear highly tempting.
3
Evaluate the options against the prephrase.
The correct option reveals that the decrease in 'vacation days' is an administrative change, not a loss of actual time off. Employees no longer stress about wasting formal vacation time on minor errands, explaining both the statistical drop and the psychological improvement.
This bridges the gap by redefining how the metric is recorded, ensuring both premises can logically coexist without contradicting each other.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Conflicting Premises (Resolving an Apparent Discrepancy)
Soru 1388Soru →

A legal analyst argues: 'To secure a commercial zoning permit, a property developer must submit an environmental impact report. Any developer who submits an environmental impact report will face a mandatory public hearing. Therefore, if a property developer secures a commercial zoning permit, they must hire legal representation.'

Arrange the following logical steps in the correct sequence to construct a valid deductive chain that proves the analyst's conclusion. Your sequence must start with the initial trigger condition, proceed through the explicit premises, insert the required sufficient assumption to bridge the logical gap, and end with the final guaranteed outcome.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence builds the conditional chain logically: Permit -> Report -> Hearing -> Assumption (Hearing means Legal Rep) -> Legal Rep.
The argument's premises establish that securing a permit requires an environmental report (A -> B), and the report requires a public hearing (B -> C). The conclusion states that securing a permit requires hiring legal representation (A -> D). To validly derive this conclusion, we must bridge the gap between the end of the premise chain (C) and the conclusion's final requirement (D). The correct order mathematically reflects this logical flow: Trigger (A) -> Premise 1 (B) -> Premise 2 (C) -> Sufficient Assumption (C -> D) -> Conclusion (D).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the initial condition of the argument's conclusion.
The chain begins with 'A property developer secures a commercial zoning permit.'
Deductive chains testing conditional logic typically start with the sufficient condition of the conclusion being proven.
2
Apply the first explicit premise.
The next step is 'The developer submits an environmental impact report.'
The first premise explicitly states that securing a permit requires the submission of this report.
3
Apply the second explicit premise.
The sequence moves to 'The developer faces a mandatory public hearing.'
The second premise logically connects the submission of the report to facing a mandatory hearing.
4
Identify and insert the unstated sufficient assumption.
The assumption 'Any developer who faces a mandatory public hearing must hire legal representation' is placed next.
There is a logical gap between facing a hearing and the conclusion's requirement. This assumption logically bridges that specific gap.
5
State the final derived conclusion.
The chain ends with 'The developer must hire legal representation.'
This represents the logical closure of the argument, completing the 'then' clause of the analyst's conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions in Deductive Chains
Soru 1389Soru →

Marine Biologist: The recent severe decline in the local population of tufted puffins is driven by new commercial fishing operations off the coast. The puffin population started dropping sharply three years ago, precisely when these commercial fleets began large-scale harvesting of sand lance, the puffin's primary food source.

Statement: A cessation of the commercial harvesting of sand lance would result in a full recovery of the local tufted puffin population.

The statement above is a necessary assumption of the marine biologist's argument.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False. The statement makes a predictive claim about recovery, which is not required to prove the historical causal claim made in the argument.
The statement is not a necessary assumption because the argument only claims that commercial fishing caused the decline. It does not make any predictions about the future or claim that the damage is reversible. If we negate the statement (asserting that stopping the fishing would NOT result in a full recovery), the argument's conclusion—that fishing was the initial cause—remains perfectly valid. Since the argument survives the Negation Test, the statement is not logically required.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's conclusion and primary premise.
Conclusion: Commercial fishing operations are driving the decline in the tufted puffin population. Premise: The decline coincided exactly with the commercial harvesting of the puffin's food source.
Evaluating an assumption requires isolating the exact gap between the evidence provided and the claim being made.
2
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed statement.
Negated statement: A cessation of the commercial harvesting of sand lance would NOT result in a full recovery of the local tufted puffin population.
The Negation Test determines if an assumption is strictly necessary. If the negated statement destroys the conclusion, it is a necessary assumption.
3
Evaluate whether the negated statement falsifies the conclusion.
The negated statement does not falsify the conclusion. The fishing operations could have caused the decline even if the population cannot recover (e.g., if the damage is irreversible due to critically low breeding numbers).
Because the conclusion remains logically intact even when the statement is false, the statement is not required by the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary assumptions must be strictly required for the conclusion to hold; a causal argument does not inherently assume the reversibility of the effect.
Soru 1390Soru →

Anthropologist: Chemical analysis of obsidian blades found at the ancient inland Xoloti settlement perfectly matches the isotopic signature of the coastal Yuma quarry, located 400 miles away across the barren Sunu Desert. Clearly, the Xoloti must have engaged in direct, long-distance trade expeditions with the coastal Yuma people to obtain this material, rather than acquiring it gradually through a chain of intermediate, shorter trade networks involving other settlements.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the anthropologist's argument? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Extensive archaeological excavations have found no Yuma obsidian artifacts at the sites of any known ancient settlements located between Xoloti and the coastal Yuma quarry.; Remains of marine fish, which would have spoiled within days of being caught, were frequently buried alongside the obsidian blades at the Xoloti settlement.

Cevap

The correct options are the one noting the absence of obsidian at intermediate settlements and the one describing the presence of highly perishable marine fish at the inland site.
The argument concludes that the obsidian was acquired via direct long-distance expeditions rather than a gradual, intermediate trade network. To strengthen this, we must find evidence that either makes direct expeditions more plausible or makes intermediate trade networks less plausible. The option regarding the lack of artifacts at intermediate sites strengthens the argument by directly undermining the alternative explanation (down-the-line trade). The option regarding perishable marine fish strengthens the argument by showing that transit from the coast was extremely fast, which is consistent with direct expeditions and highly inconsistent with gradual, settlement-to-settlement trade.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the premises.
Conclusion: Xoloti acquired obsidian via direct long-distance expeditions, not gradual intermediate networks. Premise: Inland obsidian perfectly matches a coastal quarry 400 miles away.
Understanding the core argument is necessary before evaluating its logical gaps.
2
Identify the core logical gap or vulnerability.
The anthropologist assumes that a 400-mile distance entails direct expeditions, but offers no proof that direct trade is more plausible than a chain of shorter, settlement-to-settlement trades.
Strengthening an argument typically involves bridging its primary logical gap or ruling out alternative explanations.
3
Evaluate options for their impact on the direct vs. intermediate trade hypotheses.
Options that rule out intermediate trade (lack of artifacts at intermediate sites) or require rapid transport (perishable marine fish) support the direct trade conclusion.
Evidence that undermines the alternative cause (gradual trade) directly strengthens the author's preferred cause (direct expeditions).

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening an argument by ruling out alternative explanations and affirming the feasibility of the proposed explanation.
Soru 1391Soru →

Political Theorist: Any society aiming to establish a truly egalitarian economic framework is obligated to prioritize the decentralization of its political institutions. When political authority is heavily concentrated, bureaucratic inertia inevitably stifles the implementation of innovative wealth-redistribution programs. Fortunately, the newly ratified constitution of the Republic of Montoria systematically dismantles its historically centralized governance structures. Therefore, by enacting this constitution, Montoria will successfully institute a truly egalitarian economic framework.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the political theorist's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The argument inappropriately infers that fulfilling a necessary requirement for a particular social condition inherently guarantees the eventual emergence of that condition.

Cevap

The argument inappropriately infers that fulfilling a necessary requirement for a particular social condition inherently guarantees the eventual emergence of that condition.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the argument commits a formal logic error by confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition. The first premise establishes that political decentralization is a prerequisite (necessary condition) for an egalitarian framework. The argument then notes that Montoria has achieved this decentralization. However, it concludes that Montoria will definitely achieve the egalitarian framework. This assumes that because a necessary hurdle has been cleared, the final goal is guaranteed, ignoring other potential requirements for an egalitarian society.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional logic established in the first premise.
An egalitarian economic framework requires the decentralization of political institutions. Logically: Egalitarian Framework -> Decentralization.
To establish the baseline logical rules the argument must follow.
2
Identify the factual premise regarding the specific case of Montoria.
Montoria is dismantling its centralized governance, meaning it is achieving the necessary condition (Decentralization).
To see how the argument applies the general rules to a specific scenario.
3
Evaluate the argument's final conclusion.
The author concludes that because Montoria achieved Decentralization, it will successfully establish an Egalitarian Framework. Logically: Decentralization -> Egalitarian Framework.
To compare the argument's logical deduction against the established conditional rules.
4
Compare the premise structure to the conclusion to identify the logical leap.
The argument treats the necessary condition (Decentralization) as if it were a sufficient condition to guarantee the outcome (Egalitarian Framework).
This identifies the specific formal fallacy (Affirming the Consequent) committed by the author.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Soru 1392Soru →

Read the argument below.

Legal Scholar: The proposed statutory framework for regulating artificial intelligence should be entirely rejected. A legislative mandate that attempts to codify ethical constraints on algorithmic decision-making is inherently invalid. We can be certain of this because any legal apparatus designed to restrict the autonomous outputs of machine learning systems inherently lacks legitimate jurisprudential standing.

Is the following statement about the argument true or false?

The legal scholar's argument is logically flawed because it offers a premise that is essentially a mere restatement of the conclusion it seeks to prove.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The argument commits the flaw of circular reasoning (begging the question) by using synonymous language to present the conclusion as its own premise.
The statement correctly diagnoses the argument's flaw. The scholar concludes that a statutory framework regulating AI is invalid. The only evidence given is that a legal mechanism restricting machine learning lacks standing. These two claims are semantically identical, meaning the premise simply assumes the truth of the conclusion rather than independently supporting it.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that a legislative mandate attempting to codify ethical constraints on AI is inherently invalid.
Evaluating any argument requires first understanding the main point the author is trying to establish.
2
Identify the premises provided to support the conclusion.
The sole premise is that any legal apparatus designed to restrict the autonomous outputs of machine learning systems lacks legitimate jurisprudential standing.
Premises are the evidence or logical foundation meant to support the conclusion.
3
Compare the semantic meaning of the premise and the conclusion.
A 'legal apparatus' is synonymous with a 'legislative mandate', 'restricting machine learning' is synonymous with 'codifying constraints on AI', and 'lacking legitimate jurisprudential standing' means it is 'inherently invalid'.
In complex arguments, identifying semantic equivalence reveals whether independent evidence is actually being offered.
4
Evaluate the statement provided in the question.
The statement claims the premise is essentially a mere restatement of the conclusion. Based on the semantic comparison, this claim is accurate.
This matches the definition of circular reasoning, specifically the 'synonymic paraphrasing' archetype.

Anahtar Kavram

Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)
Soru 1393Soru →

Read the following passage carefully. Then, match each explicit detail from the text (on the left) with the specific logical inference it most strongly supports (on the right).

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, urban theorists responded to the squalor of industrialization through two distinct, though occasionally intersecting, philosophical paradigms. The City Beautiful movement, championed by Daniel Burnham, sought to impose moral and civic virtue upon the urban populace through monumental, neoclassical grandeur. Burnham’s philosophy posited that aesthetically unified public spaces would organically inspire civic loyalty, thereby mitigating social unrest. Consequently, City Beautiful projects prioritized municipal centers, grand boulevards, and elaborate park systems, often at the expense of addressing the structural poverty endemic to the residential wards they displaced.

Conversely, Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City movement approached urban dysfunction not as an aesthetic deficit, but as a socio-economic crisis necessitating spatial decentralization. Howard advocated for the creation of self-contained, limited-population satellite communities encircled by permanent agricultural greenbelts. Unlike Burnham, who sought to retrofit existing metropolises with monumental civic cores, Howard’s model was fundamentally preventative. By strictly regulating land use to prevent overcrowding and integrating industry with natural landscapes, Howard believed the Garden City would naturally suppress the economic stratification inherent to the unregulated capitalist metropolis.

While both movements sought to remedy the moral decay attributed to industrial slums, their structural methodologies implied divergent views on human behavior. The City Beautiful movement operated on the assumption that individuals are primarily influenced by their visual and civic environment; thus, grandeur begets order. Howard's model, however, suggested that social harmony is fundamentally a byproduct of economic and spatial equilibrium, implying that aesthetic improvements without corresponding structural economic changes are ultimately superficial.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Burnham's projects frequently resulted in the displacement of existing residential wards to build elaborate park systems.
Howard advocated for self-contained communities strictly bounded by permanent agricultural greenbelts.
Burnham's philosophy posited that aesthetically unified public spaces would organically inspire civic loyalty.
Howard's model suggested that social harmony is fundamentally a byproduct of economic and spatial equilibrium.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings logically connect specific textual details to their unstated necessary implications: displacement of wards implies housing stability was sacrificed; permanent greenbelts imply physical preclusion of endless outward expansion; the belief that aesthetics inspire loyalty implies chaotic spaces fail to do so; and the belief in economic equilibrium implies superficial aesthetic projects are insufficient.
Each correct pairing requires identifying a specific factual detail provided in the passage and recognizing the unstated but logically necessary deduction that flows directly from it. The correct inferences do not rely on outside knowledge or cross the boundary between the two contrasting viewpoints presented.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the consequences of the City Beautiful movement displacing residential wards.
It logically supports the inference that the immediate housing stability of the impoverished was sacrificed to achieve monumental civic grandeur.
The passage states that displacement occurred 'at the expense of' addressing the structural poverty in those very wards.
2
Evaluate the function of Howard's permanent agricultural greenbelts.
It logically supports the inference that a Garden City was structurally precluded from accommodating unlimited outward population growth.
A 'permanent' physical barrier encircling a community inherently places a hard limit on its physical geographic expansion.
3
Examine Burnham's premise regarding aesthetically unified public spaces.
It logically supports the inference that City Beautiful advocates would assume visually chaotic districts fail to mitigate urban disorder.
If unified grandeur is the mechanism required to inspire order and loyalty, its absence logically fails to yield that result.
4
Assess Howard's view on social harmony and economic equilibrium.
It logically supports the inference that aesthetic improvements alone would be viewed as insufficient to resolve urban crises.
The passage explicitly notes that Howard's framework views aesthetic improvements without structural economic changes as 'superficial.'

Anahtar Kavram

Inferring necessary logical consequences from explicit textual details while avoiding viewpoint misattribution.
Soru 1394Soru →

Consider the following scenario and the proposed resolution:

Scenario: A major research hospital implemented a rigorous hand-hygiene protocol for all medical staff, designed specifically to reduce the transmission of hospital-acquired bacterial infections. An independent, year-long audit confirmed a 98% staff compliance rate with the new protocol. Hospital administrators logically expected the frequency of these infections to plummet. However, at the end of the year, the total number of hospital-acquired bacterial infections recorded at the facility was 40% higher than the total number recorded in the previous year.

Statement to Evaluate: The additional premise *"Midway through the year, the hospital completed a massive infrastructure expansion that absorbed patient populations from three closed regional clinics, effectively doubling the hospital's total patient admission volume compared to the previous year"* successfully bridges the conflicting premises and resolves the apparent discrepancy.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is True because it successfully bridges the logical gap using a rate-versus-count resolution. The paradox relies on the tension between a highly effective hygiene protocol and a 40% rise in total infections. By introducing the fact that the total patient population doubled (a 100% increase in baseline volume), the premise proves that a 40% increase in total infections actually represents a steep decline in the per-patient infection rate, perfectly explaining both premises.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conflicting premises presented in the scenario.
Premise 1: Staff achieved 98% compliance with a highly effective hygiene protocol. Premise 2: The total number of hospital-acquired infections increased by 40%.
Identifying the exact nature of the conflict is required to evaluate potential resolutions.
2
Identify the logical gap or discrepancy archetype.
The discrepancy involves an expectation about a 'rate' (frequency per patient) contrasting with an outcome based on a 'total number' (absolute count).
Recognizing the shift from rates to absolute numbers reveals what a successful bridging premise must accomplish.
3
Evaluate the proposed statement against the discrepancy.
The statement explains that the hospital's total patient volume doubled (a 100% increase in baseline population).
We must determine if this new fact allows both original premises to be simultaneously true without contradiction.
4
Synthesize the premises and the new statement.
If the patient population increased by 100% but total infections only increased by 40%, the per-patient infection rate actually decreased significantly. This aligns perfectly with the 98% hygiene compliance.
Because the statement successfully reconciles the two seemingly opposing facts, it correctly bridges the conflicting premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Conflicting Premises (Rate vs. Count)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1395Soru →

According to the established standards of rational inquiry, a theory is justified only if it is supported by a preponderance of empirical evidence. The striking workers claim that their decision to blockade the factory is justified because it is the only way to force management to the negotiating table and secure living wages. But this demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of rational inquiry. Since the workers have provided no empirical evidence to support their blockade, their claim that the blockade is justified is entirely without merit.

Which of the following most accurately describes a logical flaw in the argument's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It illicitly employs a term in a sense appropriate to evaluating truth claims in order to judge the merits of a practical endeavor.

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it illicitly employs a term in a sense appropriate to evaluating truth claims in order to judge the merits of a practical endeavor.
The correct answer accurately describes the argument's fallacy of equivocation. The author establishes a standard for when a theory is 'justified' (an epistemic sense involving truth and factual evidence) and then inappropriately applies that exact standard to a 'decision to blockade' (a practical endeavor where 'justified' means morally or strategically warranted). By conflating these two distinct meanings of 'justified', the argument reaches a flawed conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first premise to identify the standard established by the author.
The author establishes that a 'theory is justified only if it is supported by a preponderance of empirical evidence.' Here, 'justified' means epistemically validated.
Understanding the initial definition of key terms is necessary to track how they are used later in the argument.
2
Analyze the target of the author's critique.
The author is criticizing the striking workers' claim that their 'decision to blockade the factory is justified.' Here, 'justified' means practically or morally defensible.
Identifying the shift in context (from evaluating a 'theory' to evaluating a 'decision') is crucial for spotting semantic shifts.
3
Evaluate the author's conclusion based on the premises.
The author concludes the workers' claim is without merit because they provided no empirical evidence. The author applies the standard for epistemic justification to a claim of practical justification.
This reveals the core logical flaw: the argument conflates two different senses of the word 'justified'.

Anahtar Kavram

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)
Soru 1396Soru →

Match each candidate necessary assumption on the left with its logically precise contradictory on the right. This strict formulation is essential for properly testing assumptions in formal arguments.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

All genetically modified crops require less water than traditional varieties.
If the central bank raises interest rates, inflation will stabilize.
Most of the artifacts discovered at the excavation site date back to the Bronze Age.
No local businesses will survive the economic downturn without government subsidies.
Some current medical treatments rely on compounds derived from endangered plants.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Each assumption is matched with its precise logical contradictory: 'All' with 'At least one not', 'If A then B' with 'A and not B', 'Most' with 'Half or fewer', 'No' with 'At least one', and 'Some' with 'None'.
Applying the Negation Technique correctly involves identifying the minimal condition necessary to make the original statement false. For quantifiers, 'All' negates to 'Not all' (at least one does not), 'None' negates to 'Some' (at least one does), 'Some' negates to 'None', and 'Most' (more than half) negates to 'Half or fewer'. For conditional statements (If A then B), the negation is that the sufficient condition (A) occurs without the necessary condition (B).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the quantifier or logical structure in each candidate assumption statement.
Identified 'All', 'If... then', 'Most', 'No', and 'Some' as the key logical operators.
Identifying the formal logic structure is the prerequisite for generating a precise logical contradictory.
2
Formulate the exact logical contradictory for each identified structure.
'All' negates to 'Not all'. 'If A then B' negates to 'A and not B'. 'Most' negates to 'Half or fewer'. 'No' negates to 'Some'. 'Some' negates to 'None'.
This negation technique requires the minimal claim necessary to destroy the original statement.
3
Match the formulated negations to the provided options.
The pairings are accurately aligned based on their strict logical contradictories.
This ensures the correct application of the technique without overreaching or committing formal logic errors.

Anahtar Kavram

The Negation Technique requires finding the exact logical contradictory of a statement. This means identifying the minimal claim required to make the original statement false, avoiding polar opposites (like negating 'All' to 'None') or mistaken conditional negations.
Soru 1397Soru →

Paleontologist: The recently unearthed fossil of *Aerovenator*, a small theropod dinosaur, clearly shows impressions of asymmetrical feathers surrounding its forelimbs. In all modern bird species, asymmetrical feathers are essential for generating the aerodynamic lift required for sustained, powered flight. Therefore, unlike its close evolutionary relatives which were only capable of gliding, *Aerovenator* possessed the ability to engage in sustained, powered flight.

Which of the following are assumptions on which the paleontologist's argument depends? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: *Aerovenator* possessed the muscular and skeletal anatomy necessary to utilize its forelimbs to generate aerodynamic lift.; The asymmetrical feather impressions preserved alongside the *Aerovenator* fossil did not originate from a different, flying species that was fossilized at the same site.

Cevap

The correct answers are the statements that *Aerovenator* possessed the necessary muscular and skeletal anatomy to utilize its forelimbs for lift, and that the asymmetrical feather impressions genuinely belong to the *Aerovenator* fossil rather than another species.
The correct statements represent necessary assumptions because applying the logical Negation Test to them destroys the paleontologist's argument. The argument leaps from the presence of asymmetrical feathers directly to the capability of powered flight. For this leap to be valid, the dinosaur must have possessed all other physiological prerequisites for flight (such as suitable musculature), and the fossil evidence itself must be untainted (the feathers must actually belong to the specimen in question).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and the premises.
Conclusion: *Aerovenator* was capable of sustained, powered flight. Premises: The fossil has asymmetrical feather impressions; modern birds require asymmetrical feathers for powered flight.
Deconstructing the argument is the first critical step to evaluating the logical gap between the evidence and the claim.
2
Identify potential gaps or vulnerabilities in the reasoning.
The argument assumes that having flight feathers is the only requirement for flight, ignoring other physiological needs. It also assumes the physical evidence definitively belongs to this specific dinosaur.
Anticipating logical gaps helps in identifying both 'supporter' and 'defender' assumptions.
3
Apply the Negation Test to candidate answers.
Negating the correct options destroys the conclusion. Negating 'It possessed the necessary anatomy' means it couldn't flap effectively. Negating 'The feathers didn't belong to another species' means there is no evidence *Aerovenator* had the feathers at all.
The Negation Test is the definitive method for confirming whether an assumption is strictly logically necessary.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Test
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1398Soru →

Each of the arguments below is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it illicitly shifts the meaning of a key term. Pair each flawed argument with the abstract description that most accurately diagnoses its specific equivocation.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The head coach demands that all athletes attend rigorous practice sessions daily in order to refine their physical conditioning and teamwork. However, our team physician has maintained a highly successful medical practice for over two decades without ever participating in daily physical drills. Therefore, the coach's requirement is unnecessarily burdensome.
The new municipal taxation policy is heavily criticized by opponents for unfairly discriminating against the owners of small, family-run businesses. Yet, the fundamental duty of any municipal regulatory agency is to properly discriminate among different economic sectors based on their distinct market impacts and community needs. Thus, the criticism of the taxation policy is logically unfounded.
The fundamental laws of thermodynamics dictate that the total entropy in any completely isolated system must inevitably always increase over time. Since it is our primary civic duty as responsible citizens to strictly obey the law at all times, laboratory scientists are morally obligated to ensure that the isolated systems in their experiments exhibit increasing entropy.
A prominent literary reviewer recently claimed that the acclaimed novelist's latest manuscript completely lacks a consistent narrative structure, confusing the reader. But this new manuscript is entirely consistent with the author's previous award-winning works, which also featured deliberately disjointed timelines and fragmented storytelling. Therefore, the reviewer's claim regarding the manuscript's narrative is demonstrably false.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings accurately match the ambiguous term exploited in each argument (practice, discriminate, law, consistent) with the abstract description of how its meaning illicitly changes between the premises and the conclusion.
Each correct pairing successfully diagnoses the dual meanings of the ambiguous terms exploited in the arguments. The coach/physician argument shifts 'practice' from training to a profession; the taxation argument shifts 'discriminating' from prejudice to selection; the thermodynamics argument shifts 'law' from descriptive science to prescriptive rules; and the literary argument shifts 'consistent' from internal coherence to historical alignment.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the sports/medicine argument to locate the semantic shift.
Identified that 'practice' changes meaning from 'athletic training' to 'a medical business'.
Finding the specific term that bridges the premises but changes definition reveals the equivocation.
2
Analyze the taxation argument to locate the semantic shift.
Identified that 'discriminating' changes meaning from 'unjust prejudice' to 'judicious distinction'.
This shows how a valid regulatory function is improperly used to dismiss a claim of unfair bias.
3
Analyze the thermodynamics argument to locate the semantic shift.
Identified that 'law' changes meaning from 'a scientific description of nature' to 'a prescriptive civic duty'.
This uncovers the flaw of treating a natural inevitability as a moral or legal obligation.
4
Analyze the literary critique argument to locate the semantic shift.
Identified that 'consistent' changes meaning from 'internally coherent structure' to 'matching a past historical pattern'.
This highlights how the author's historical habits are improperly used to disprove a claim about internal narrative logic.

Anahtar Kavram

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term) occurs when an argument relies on a key word or phrase having one meaning in a premise and an entirely different meaning in another premise or the conclusion.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 1399Soru →

Match each logical argument (left) with the specific piece of evidence (right) that most powerfully strengthens its conclusion by resolving its core structural vulnerability.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

An analysis revealed that companies allowing remote work saw a 15% increase in output per employee. Thus, working from home eliminates office distractions and directly boosts individual efficiency.
Immediately after the government lowered the capital gains tax, foreign investment in domestic tech startups doubled. Therefore, the tax cut successfully incentivized international investors.
Because fragments of a rare meteor were found alongside fossilized dinosaur bones in the crater, the meteor impact must have been the direct cause of the sudden extinction in this region.
To combat urban heat islands, our city should mandate white reflective roofs, just as the city of Solaris did ten years ago to dramatically lower its ambient temperatures.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings are: Remote work (Left 1) with Time-tracking logs (Right 2); Tax cut (Left 2) with Global downturn (Right 3); Meteor impact (Left 3) with Radiometric dating (Right 4); and Urban heat roofs (Left 4) with Meteorological data (Right 1).
Each correct pairing directly addresses the unstated assumption in the argument. Left 1 is strengthened by Right 2 because it eliminates the alternative that productivity rose due to longer hours. Left 2 is strengthened by Right 3 because it eliminates the alternative of a global market boom. Left 3 is strengthened by Right 4 by proving the timeline supports causality. Left 4 is strengthened by Right 1 because it validates the analogy between the two cities.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each argument to identify its conclusion and its underlying vulnerability (e.g., alternative causes, weak analogies).
Identified four distinct gaps: alternate cause for productivity, alternate cause for investment, temporal/causal gap in extinction, and relevance gap in the city analogy.
Understanding the specific flaw in an argument is necessary before one can identify the evidence that repairs it.
2
Evaluate the available evidence statements on the right to see which logically seals a corresponding gap.
Matched each evidence statement to an argument based on how it defends against a vulnerability (e.g., ruling out increased work hours to support efficiency).
Strengthening an argument often involves eliminating alternative explanations or confirming the validity of a comparison.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying and resolving structural vulnerabilities in causal and analogical reasoning.
Soru 1400Soru →

The survival of the coral reef ecosystem in the Sapphire Atoll requires a continuous presence of parrotfish. Parrotfish, however, can maintain their populations only if there is a low concentration of acidic pollutants in the surrounding water. It has been recently established that heavy industrial runoff from the mainland introduces high levels of heavy metals into the atoll. Therefore, whenever the atoll experiences heavy industrial runoff, the coral reef ecosystem will ultimately fail to survive.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The introduction of high levels of heavy metals into the atoll precludes a low concentration of acidic pollutants in the water.

Cevap

The statement asserting that the introduction of high levels of heavy metals into the atoll precludes a low concentration of acidic pollutants in the water.
The argument depends on linking the new information introduced in the premises (heavy metals) to the causal chain that leads to the destruction of the reef. The premises establish that survival requires parrotfish, and parrotfish require low acid. Thus, a lack of low acid guarantees the reef will not survive. The argument concludes that heavy runoff guarantees the reef will not survive, based strictly on the fact that runoff introduces heavy metals. For this to make sense, the heavy metals must cause the lack of low acid. By stating that heavy metals preclude low acid, this option perfectly bridges the gap in the conditional chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional statements in the premises.
Survival requires Parrotfish (Survival -> Parrotfish). Parrotfish require Low Acid (Parrotfish -> Low Acid). Heavy Runoff introduces Heavy Metals (Runoff -> Heavy Metals).
Identifying the formal logic structure is the first step in finding the missing structural link.
2
Analyze the conditional statement in the conclusion.
Heavy Runoff guarantees a failure to survive (Runoff -> NOT Survival).
Understanding the final claim determines what the premises must logically prove to make the argument valid.
3
Chain the premises and find the logical gap.
The conclusion requires linking Runoff to NOT Survival. We know Runoff -> Heavy Metals. By contrapositive, NOT Low Acid -> NOT Parrotfish -> NOT Survival. To connect these halves (Runoff -> Heavy Metals ... NOT Low Acid -> NOT Survival), we need a bridge between Heavy Metals and NOT Low Acid.
An argument relying on a conditional chain is only valid if all terms leading from the sufficient condition to the necessary condition are properly connected.
4
Formulate the required assumption and apply the Negation Test.
The required assumption is that Heavy Metals -> NOT Low Acid (Heavy metals preclude low acid). If negated, heavy metals would NOT prevent low acid, which means runoff could occur without disrupting the conditions necessary for survival, destroying the conclusion.
A necessary assumption must be required for the conclusion to stand; if its negation invalidates the argument, it is the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Assumptions in Conditional Logic
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
ÖncekiSayfa 70 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin