Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 1461Soru →

Consider the following argument:

To revitalize its struggling economy, the town council of Bellville plans to offer substantial tax incentives to attract major tech companies. The council reasons that because tech companies employ high-earning professionals, the relocation of these companies will bring new wealthy residents to Bellville. These new residents will spend their money at local businesses, thereby providing the significant economic boost the town needs.

Statement to evaluate:
The argument necessarily assumes that the high-earning professionals employed by these tech companies will spend a larger percentage of their income at local Bellville businesses than the town's current residents do.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false because it describes a condition that is not logically necessary for the conclusion to hold. The argument requires a significant absolute increase in local spending to boost the economy. Because the tech professionals are 'high-earning,' they could spend a smaller percentage of their income locally than current residents do, yet still spend a much larger absolute amount of money. Applying the Negation Technique: if the professionals do NOT spend a larger percentage of their income locally, the conclusion that the town will receive a significant economic boost can still hold true. Thus, the assumption is not strictly necessary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that attracting tech companies and their employees will provide a significant economic boost to Bellville's local businesses.
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to determine what assumptions are required to support it.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The argument states that tech companies employ high-earning professionals who will move to the town and spend their money at local businesses.
Premises reveal the evidence used to bridge the gap to the conclusion.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the statement being evaluated.
Negated statement: The high-earning professionals will NOT spend a larger percentage of their income locally than current residents do (meaning they will spend an equal or smaller percentage).
The Negation Technique is the definitive test for a necessary assumption. If negating the statement destroys the argument, the statement is necessary.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the argument.
Even if the new professionals spend a smaller percentage of their income, their much higher total incomes mean they could still spend a massive absolute dollar amount locally. The conclusion does not collapse.
Because the argument's conclusion can still be true even when the statement is false, the statement is not a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions via the Negation Technique
Soru 1462Soru →

Urban Planner: To reduce our municipality's soaring electricity expenses, we should replace all conventional streetlamps in the downtown district with genetically engineered bioluminescent flora. These plants emit a steady glow without drawing any power from the grid. Therefore, implementing this replacement will drastically lower the downtown district's overall operational budget while preserving the area's nighttime usability.

Evaluate the argument by applying the Variance Test. Match each hypothetical factual discovery about the bioluminescent flora (left) to its corresponding logical impact on the planner's conclusion (right).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Yes, the flora require an expensive, specialized nutrient gel applied weekly to survive urban pollution.
No, the flora are entirely self-sustaining and require less physical upkeep than conventional streetlamps.
Yes, the light emitted by the flora meets or exceeds all current municipal standards for pedestrian and traffic visibility.
No, the flora emit a faint glow that cannot penetrate common urban fog or rain, making navigation hazardous.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings accurately map each polar outcome to its precise logical effect on the two core claims of the argument: the reduction of the operational budget and the preservation of nighttime usability.
Applying the Variance Test requires determining how opposite answers to a question impact the argument. If a 'Yes' weakens and a 'No' strengthens (or vice versa), the issue is highly relevant. The correct matches successfully align each factual discovery with its logical impact on either the budget premise or the visibility premise.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the core argument structure
Conclusion: Replacing streetlamps with flora will lower the operational budget and preserve usability. Premise: Flora emit light without drawing grid power.
Identifying the two distinct sub-claims (budget reduction and usability preservation) is necessary to evaluate the argument.
2
Apply the Variance Test to the budget claim
The budget claim assumes no new hidden costs will offset the electricity savings.
Evaluating an argument requires identifying unstated assumptions that could make or break the conclusion.
3
Match budget-related discoveries
Paired the expensive nutrient gel discovery with weakening the budget claim, and self-sustaining flora with strengthening it.
A 'Yes' outcome to hidden costs weakens the financial conclusion, while a 'No' outcome strengthens it by removing a potential obstacle.
4
Match usability-related discoveries
Paired adequate visibility with strengthening the usability claim, and the faint glow in fog with weakening it.
A 'Yes' outcome to meeting standards strengthens the functional conclusion, while a 'No' outcome directly weakens it.

Anahtar Kavram

The Variance Test consists of supplying polar opposite responses (e.g., Yes/No) to an evaluation question and analyzing whether one response strengthens the argument while the other weakens it.
Soru 1463Soru →

Scenario: A local government introduced a generous financial subsidy for homeowners who install advanced solar panels, aiming to decrease the region's overall residential reliance on the municipal power grid. Within a year, 40 percent of households installed the subsidized panels, which generate significantly more electricity than a typical household consumes during daylight hours. Surprisingly, utility records show that the total amount of electricity drawn from the municipal grid by residential neighborhoods actually increased during that same year.

Statement: The apparent discrepancy is logically resolved by the fact that the solar panels only generate electricity during daylight hours, meaning that participating households must still draw all of their electricity from the municipal grid during the evening and night.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement fails to resolve the paradox because it relies on a static fact to explain a contradictory dynamic change. Before the solar panels were installed, households relied on the grid during both the day and the night. After installation, daytime grid reliance was eliminated for nearly half the households while their nighttime reliance remained unchanged. Mathematically, this must result in a net decrease in total grid usage. Pointing out that nighttime usage still exists merely explains why total usage didn't drop to zero; it completely fails to explain the surprising outcome that total grid usage actually increased.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core discrepancy in the scenario.
The paradox is that solar panels eliminated daytime grid reliance for 40% of households, yet the overall residential grid usage increased.
A clear grasp of the conflicting facts is necessary to evaluate potential resolutions.
2
Analyze the proposed explanatory statement.
The statement claims that households still rely on the grid at night because the panels only work during the day.
We must determine exactly what causal mechanism the statement provides.
3
Evaluate whether the statement reconciles the conflicting facts.
It does not. Prior to the panels, households used the grid both day and night. Eliminating daytime usage while maintaining nighttime usage results in a net decrease. The statement cannot explain an increase.
A valid resolution must actively account for the unexpected direction of the change (the increase), not merely explain why the decrease was not 100%.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying explanations that fail to account for relative changes and merely state static facts.
Soru 1464Soru →

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

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The proposed tax on sugary beverages is designed to improve public health, but it will disproportionately burden low-income families. Therefore, the city council should vote against it.
Dr. Lin’s study yielded groundbreaking insights into human behavior, yet it relies on subjects who were kept ignorant of the study's true purpose. Consequently, the study should be denied publication.
The new highway expansion will dramatically reduce traffic congestion for commuters. However, it will destroy a significant portion of the local wetlands. Thus, the state must halt the project.
Company X discovered a software flaw that could theoretically allow data access. Although no access occurred and it is now patched, Company X is obligated to notify all users.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Each argumentative scenario is correctly paired with the principle that abstractly formulates a conditional rule sufficient to guarantee the scenario's conclusion.
Each correctly matched principle acts as a sufficient assumption (If Premise -> Then Conclusion) that logically guarantees the conclusion of its corresponding scenario. The principles abstract the specific details (e.g., 'sugary beverage tax' becomes 'legislation', 'wetlands' becomes 'ecologically sensitive habitats') while maintaining the precise logical relationship required to prove the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each argumentative scenario to separate the factual premises from the normative conclusion.
Identified the logical gap in each scenario where a specific factual premise requires a broader universal rule to necessitate the stated conclusion.
Justifying a principle requires understanding exactly what missing conditional rule is needed to bridge the premises to the conclusion.
2
Examine the provided principles to find the universal rule that guarantees each specific conclusion.
Matched the specific elements of each scenario (e.g., deceiving participants, harming wetlands) to the generalized sufficient conditions in the principles.
The credited principle must be sufficient to logically entail the conclusion when combined with the argument's premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Principle - Justify: Identifying sufficient conditional rules that bridge the gap between factual premises and normative conclusions.
Soru 1465Soru →

Consumer Psychologist: A recent study of a large online retailer compared two groups of customers: those who manually selected individual items for a monthly delivery and those who paid a 15 percent premium for a "curated" box, where the retailer selected items on their behalf from the same inventory. The customers receiving the curated boxes reported significantly higher overall satisfaction with their purchases. Clearly, the psychological relief of avoiding decision fatigue—the mental exhaustion that comes from making numerous choices—is the primary reason for this higher satisfaction.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the consumer psychologist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Customers who manually selected their items from a temporarily restricted, significantly smaller inventory reported higher satisfaction levels than those who manually selected from the full inventory.

Cevap

The statement that customers selecting from a restricted inventory reported higher satisfaction than those selecting from the full inventory.
This option strengthens the argument by isolating the variable of choice. By showing that a mere reduction in the number of choices (a smaller inventory) leads to higher satisfaction even without expert curation or the element of surprise, it validates the psychologist's central claim that avoiding decision fatigue is the active mechanism driving the satisfaction.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the primary reason for higher satisfaction among curated box customers is the psychological relief of avoiding decision fatigue.
Understanding the precise causal claim is necessary to evaluate what would logically strengthen it.
2
Identify the premises and the logical gap.
Premise: Curated box customers (no choices made) have higher satisfaction than manual selection customers (many choices made). Gap: The argument assumes the cause of this difference is the lack of choices (decision fatigue), ignoring other possible causes like the quality of the curated items or the element of surprise.
Finding the logical gap allows us to anticipate what a strengthening answer must do: either rule out alternative causes or directly validate the proposed causal mechanism.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that supports the causal mechanism.
The correct option shows that reducing the number of choices in the manual selection group also increases satisfaction. This isolates the 'number of choices' variable and demonstrates that as choices decrease, satisfaction increases.
Showing a covariant relationship between the proposed cause (amount of choices) and the effect (satisfaction level) provides strong evidence that the proposed causal relationship is correct.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening causal arguments by demonstrating covariance or isolating variables.
Soru 1466Soru →

Urban planner: Over the last decade, the percentage of City M's residents who commute by bicycle has tripled. During this exact same timeframe, the total number of traffic accidents involving bicycles in the city has only doubled. Therefore, the comprehensive network of protected bicycle lanes installed a decade ago has successfully achieved its goal of making bicycle commuting safer per rider.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: City M has not experienced a population decline over the last decade severe enough to prevent the absolute number of bicycle commuters from doubling.

Cevap

The argument depends on the assumption that the city's overall population did not drop so drastically that a tripled percentage failed to double the absolute number of riders.
The conclusion claims that bicycling is 'safer per rider' (meaning a lower ratio of accidents to riders). We know the absolute number of accidents doubled. Therefore, for the ratio to decrease, the absolute number of riders must have more than doubled. The premise only tells us that the *percentage* of the population that rides has tripled. If the city's total population had plummeted by more than 33% over the decade, a tripled percentage would yield an absolute number of riders that grew by less than a factor of two. If riders grew by less than 2x but accidents grew by 2x, the danger per rider would actually increase. Thus, the argument absolutely requires that the population did not decline this severely.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core structure of the urban planner's argument, separating premises from the main conclusion.
Premises: The percentage of residents biking tripled; the total number of bike accidents doubled. Conclusion: Bicycle commuting has become safer per rider.
Understanding the logical gap requires isolating the exact evidence provided and the specific causal claim being made.
2
Analyze the mathematical relationship required to prove the conclusion 'safer per rider'.
For biking to be 'safer per rider', the ratio of accidents to total riders must have decreased. Since accidents doubled (increased by a factor of 2), the absolute number of riders must have more than doubled.
The conclusion relies on a rate (accidents per rider), but the premises provide a percentage of a population and an absolute number of accidents.
3
Identify the logical gap between the premises and the required mathematical relationship.
The premise states the *percentage* of residents biking tripled, but we need the *absolute number* of bikers to have at least doubled. This connects the population size to the absolute number of riders.
If the total population of the city decreased drastically, a tripled percentage might still result in fewer than twice as many absolute riders.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to the correct option to verify it is a necessary assumption.
Negating the correct option yields: 'City M HAS experienced a population decline severe enough to prevent the absolute number of riders from doubling.' If riders increased by less than 2x, but accidents increased by exactly 2x, the accident rate per rider went UP, destroying the conclusion.
A statement is a necessary assumption if and only if its logical negation causes the argument to collapse.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions involving Proportions vs. Absolute Numbers
Soru 1467Soru →

Public Health Official: To combat the rising rates of childhood obesity, the city should implement a ban on the sale of sugary drinks in all public schools. Similar bans have been successful in neighboring municipalities. While some argue that students will simply purchase these drinks from stores near the schools during the day, our data shows that most students do not leave the school campus during school hours. Therefore, the ban will significantly reduce the overall daily sugar intake of the city's schoolchildren.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the public health official's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The city's schoolchildren will not completely offset the effects of the school ban by increasing their consumption of sugary drinks from other sources.

Cevap

The statement that the schoolchildren will not completely offset the effects of the ban by increasing their consumption from other sources.
For the official's conclusion (that overall daily sugar intake will drop significantly) to hold true, it must be the case that students don't simply replace the banned drinks with sugary drinks from home or after school. When this statement is logically negated—meaning students DO completely offset the ban by getting drinks from other sources—the conclusion that their daily intake will decrease is completely destroyed. This proves the assumption is strictly necessary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the supporting premises.
Conclusion: The ban will significantly reduce the overall daily sugar intake. Premises: Most students stay on campus, meaning they cannot easily buy drinks from nearby stores during the day.
Isolating the conclusion is the essential first step to determine exactly what the author is trying to prove.
2
Spot the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The official assumes that blocking access at school and during school hours is enough to reduce total daily intake. This ignores the possibility of students bringing drinks from home or drinking much more after school.
An assumption is an unstated premise that bridges the gap between the evidence provided and the final claim.
3
Use the Negation Technique to test the most promising answer choice.
Negating the correct statement creates the scenario where students DO completely offset the ban by getting sugary drinks elsewhere. If this happens, their overall daily intake is not reduced, which directly contradicts and destroys the conclusion.
The defining characteristic of a necessary assumption is that the argument falls apart if the assumption is proven false.

Anahtar Kavram

The Negation Technique involves logically negating an answer choice to see if the resulting statement destroys the argument's conclusion. If it does, the original choice is a necessary assumption.
Soru 1468Soru →

A county introduced a new telemedicine hotline designed to divert patients with minor ailments away from the county's emergency rooms. Records show that the hotline successfully resolved over 10,000 minor ailment cases last year that would otherwise have resulted in emergency room visits. Nevertheless, the total number of patients visiting the county's emergency rooms for minor ailments was 20 percent higher last year than the year before the hotline was introduced. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The aggressive marketing campaign for the telemedicine hotline convinced many residents who previously ignored minor ailments to seek medical attention, and a large number of these individuals bypassed the hotline and went directly to the emergency room.

Cevap

The statement explaining that the hotline's marketing campaign caused a massive influx of new care-seekers, many of whom went straight to the emergency room.
The apparent discrepancy is that a new hotline successfully diverted 10,000 minor ailment cases from the emergency room, yet the total number of ER visits for minor ailments still increased by 20 percent. The correct answer resolves this by introducing a new factor: the hotline's marketing campaign caused a net increase in the total number of people seeking medical care for minor ailments. Because a large number of these newly motivated individuals went directly to the ER instead of using the hotline, the ER experienced a net increase in visits, even though the hotline successfully diverted 10,000 other cases.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the two apparently conflicting facts in the stimulus.
Fact 1: The hotline diverted 10,000 minor ailment cases from the ER. Fact 2: Overall ER visits for minor ailments increased by 20 percent.
Resolving a paradox requires a precise understanding of the two sides that seem to contradict each other.
2
Determine what the correct answer must achieve.
The correct answer must allow both facts to be simultaneously true. It must explain how the ER gained more patients than it lost to the hotline.
An effective resolution bridges the gap without denying either of the original premises.
3
Evaluate the options against the required criteria.
The correct option shows that the same initiative that diverted 10,000 patients also generated a new, larger wave of care-seekers who went directly to the ER.
This introduces a causal mechanism (marketing expanding the total pool of patients) that perfectly accounts for the concurrent success of the hotline and the increase in ER traffic.

Anahtar Kavram

Explaining Surprising Outcomes by introducing a confounding variable or unintended consequence that expands the overall scope of the situation.
Soru 1469Soru →

To improve efficiency, a national bank implemented an automated chatbot on its website to handle basic customer service inquiries, such as password resets and balance checks. Prior to the chatbot's implementation, these routine inquiries accounted for the vast majority of customer service interactions. One year after the chatbot's deployment, a performance review revealed that the average time a human customer service representative spends on a single customer interaction has increased by nearly 60 percent, even though the representatives are using the exact same software tools and handling procedures as before.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the information above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: By successfully diverting the shortest and simplest inquiries, the chatbot has altered the composition of the representatives' workload so that they now almost exclusively handle complex, time-consuming problems.

Cevap

The statement indicating that the chatbot diverted the shortest inquiries, leaving representatives to handle only complex, time-consuming problems.
The paradox arises because a tool designed for efficiency seems to have decreased it by extending call times. However, the metric in question is an 'average'. If the chatbot successfully handles all the short, routine interactions, those quick calls are removed from the human representatives' pool of tasks. The remaining calls reaching the humans are solely the complex ones that naturally require more time. This mathematical shift in the composition of the workload perfectly explains why the average time per human interaction spiked, completely resolving the discrepancy.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the apparent discrepancy.
The bank introduced a chatbot to handle basic inquiries to improve efficiency, yet the average time a human spends on a single customer interaction increased by 60 percent.
Understanding the conflicting premises is the foundation of resolving a paradox.
2
Analyze the nature of the metric being measured.
The surprising outcome is an increase in an average (time per interaction), not a total amount (total hours worked).
Changes in averages can occur strictly through changes in the composition of the group being measured.
3
Evaluate the impact of the chatbot on the composition of the workload.
The chatbot handles 'basic customer service inquiries' which previously made up the 'vast majority' of interactions. These are inherently short tasks.
Connecting the chatbot's function to the specific metric is required to find a causal link.
4
Synthesize to predict the resolution.
If all the short calls are removed from the representatives' workload, only the long, complex calls remain. Averaging only the longest calls will result in a much higher average time per call, even if efficiency is unchanged.
This logical deduction directly anticipates the correct answer choice.
5
Select the option that matches this logical mechanism.
The correct option explicitly states that the workload composition shifted toward complex, time-consuming problems.
This is the only choice that actively resolves the apparent contradiction between the premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Explaining Surprising Outcomes (Shifting Averages)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1470Soru →

A new highway bypass has been proposed to reduce traffic congestion in the city center. However, constructing the bypass would require demolishing several historic buildings in the downtown district. Since the city's traffic congestion could also be significantly reduced by expanding the existing public transit system, the city council must reject the proposal for the new highway bypass.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the argument's conclusion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any proposed project that requires the destruction of historic buildings must be rejected if its primary objective can be achieved through alternative measures.

Cevap

Any proposed project that requires the destruction of historic buildings must be rejected if its primary objective can be achieved through alternative measures.
This principle acts as a perfect conditional bridge. The stimulus provides two facts: the project destroys historic buildings, and there are alternative measures to achieve its goal. This principle states that if these two conditions are met, the project 'must be rejected', which perfectly matches and mathematically guarantees the argument's conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The city council must reject the proposal for the new highway bypass.
To understand exactly what outcome the correct principle must guarantee.
2
Identify the premises provided to support the conclusion.
Premise 1: The bypass requires demolishing historic buildings. Premise 2: The goal (reducing traffic) can be achieved alternatively (expanding transit).
To find the conditions that the correct principle must use to trigger the conclusion.
3
Formulate a missing link (conditional principle) that connects the premises to the conclusion.
If a project requires demolishing historic buildings AND its goal can be achieved alternatively, THEN the project must be rejected.
A 'Principle - Justify' question requires a sufficient assumption in the form of a general rule (Premises -> Conclusion).

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying a sufficient principle that formally guarantees the conclusion when the argument's premises are met.
Soru 1471Soru →

Match each flawed argument with the sufficient assumption that logically guarantees its conclusion. Consider contrapositives and conditional translations carefully.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Argument 1: The proposed budget cuts will drastically reduce funding for the arts program. Therefore, the budget cuts will harm the intellectual development of the students.
Argument 2: To qualify as a historical landmark, a building must have been constructed before 1920. The abandoned textile mill was built in 1934. Thus, the mill cannot be exempted from the new property tax.
Argument 3: The novel's protagonist acts out of pure self-interest rather than a sense of moral duty. Hence, the novel cannot be classified as a traditional tragedy.
Argument 4: The governor's transit initiative relies heavily on privatized toll roads. Therefore, the initiative will disproportionately burden low-income commuters.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Each argument must be matched with the assumption that perfectly bridges the gap between its premises and conclusion, often presented as a contrapositive or through advanced conditional terminology like 'unless' or 'only if'.
Each correct pair matches an argument with a missing logical link to the rule that perfectly bridges that gap. The matching assumptions utilize contrapositives and complex conditional phrasing (e.g., 'only if', 'unless') to state the required bridges logically.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Argument 1's logical gap.
The gap is between reducing arts funding and harming intellectual development.
To guarantee the conclusion, we need a premise stating that reducing arts funding causes intellectual harm.
2
Identify the assumption for Argument 1.
The correct match is the statement that provides the contrapositive of the needed rule.
The statement 'If not harming development -> not reducing funding' is logically equivalent to 'If reducing funding -> harming development'.
3
Analyze Argument 2's structure.
Premise: Landmark -> Built before 1920. The mill is NOT built before 1920. Conclusion: The mill is NOT exempted.
The missing link must logically connect being exempted to being built before 1920.
4
Identify the assumption for Argument 2.
The matching assumption states 'Exempted -> Built before 1920'.
Since the mill fails the necessary condition (built before 1920), it cannot be exempted, perfectly guaranteeing the conclusion.
5
Analyze Argument 3's gap.
Premise: Protagonist acts out of self-interest. Conclusion: Not a traditional tragedy.
We need the rule 'Self-interest -> Not traditional tragedy'.
6
Identify the assumption for Argument 3.
The statement 'Traditional tragedy only if not self-interest' translates to 'Traditional tragedy -> Not self-interest'.
This is the contrapositive of the required premise, validating the argument.
7
Analyze Argument 4's gap and matching assumption.
Gap: Toll roads -> Burdens commuters. The match uses 'No X unless Y' format.
The statement 'No initiative relies on toll roads unless it burdens commuters' means 'If it relies on toll roads, it burdens commuters', which bridges the gap.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption Conditional Mapping
Soru 1472Soru →

If a job applicant has a master's degree, they will be offered a second interview. Therefore, since Emily was offered a second interview, she must have a master's degree.

Which of the following contains a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The old library must be historically significant. After all, if a building is historically significant, it will be protected by the city council, and the old library is indeed protected.

Cevap

The option concluding that the old library must be historically significant because it is protected.
The correct answer perfectly replicates the illegal reversal flaw seen in the stimulus. The stimulus argues: If Master's (A) -> Interview (B). Emily got an Interview (B), therefore she has a Master's (A). The correct option argues: If Historically Significant (A) -> Protected (B). The library is Protected (B), therefore it is Historically Significant (A). Both erroneously confuse a necessary condition for a sufficient one.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure and flaw of the stimulus.
The argument takes the conditional form: If A (has master's) then B (second interview). It states B is true (Emily offered a second interview), and concludes A is true (she has a master's).
Identifying the abstract structure is necessary to find a matching pattern.
2
Name the specific logical flaw.
The argument commits an illegal reversal. It treats a necessary condition (getting an interview) as if it were a sufficient condition to prove the original trigger (having a master's degree).
In parallel flaw questions, the correct answer must commit the exact same logical error.
3
Evaluate the options to find the identical structural flaw, ignoring the order of premises.
The option regarding the historically significant building takes the form: Conclusion A is true (it is historically significant) because if A then B (if historically significant, then protected), and B is true (it is protected).
This precisely matches the 'If A then B. B. Therefore A' illegal reversal structure of the original argument, despite the conclusion being stated first.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Flaw - Illegal Reversal
Soru 1473Soru →

Consider the following argument:

'Technological optimists argue that artificial intelligence will solve our most pressing economic inequalities by creating unprecedented abundance. However, historically, major technological shifts have always temporarily displaced workers and widened wealth gaps before new economic structures could distribute the benefits. Since we cannot afford another period of extreme wealth polarization, we must heavily restrict the deployment of advanced AI systems.'

This argument's reasoning is flawed primarily because it presumes, without providing justification, that heavily restricting advanced AI systems is the only way to prevent extreme wealth polarization during this technological transition.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is true because the argument makes an unwarranted leap from the premise that 'unrestricted AI will cause wealth polarization' to the conclusion that 'we must heavily restrict AI.' This structure represents a classic false dilemma. It ignores alternative policy solutions to the problem of wealth polarization, such as allowing the technology to develop while implementing new economic safety nets to support displaced workers.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's premises and conclusion.
Premise: AI will likely cause temporary wealth polarization, which society cannot afford. Conclusion: Society must heavily restrict AI deployment.
Breaking down the argument into its core components is essential for identifying logical gaps.
2
Identify the unstated assumption connecting the premise to the conclusion.
The argument assumes that if we do not restrict AI, we will inevitably suffer the polarization.
Fallacies in logical reasoning often hide in unstated assumptions that bridge the premises and the conclusion.
3
Determine if this assumption creates a false dilemma.
Yes, it creates a false dichotomy between 'restrict AI' and 'suffer extreme wealth polarization.' It ignores the middle ground of 'allow AI but implement economic policies to redistribute the resulting wealth and protect displaced workers.'
A false dilemma occurs when alternatives are unjustifiably ignored or when addressing a problem is assumed to require eliminating its root cause rather than mitigating its effects.
4
Evaluate the given statement against this finding.
The statement accurately describes this exact flaw by pointing out the unjustified presumption that restricting AI is the only way to prevent the polarization. Therefore, the statement is true.
The provided statement perfectly captures the essence of the false dilemma present in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

A false dilemma (or false dichotomy) occurs when an argument unjustifiably limits the available options. In policy arguments, this often manifests as assuming that addressing a problem requires eliminating its root cause, completely ignoring the possibility of implementing strategies to mitigate the negative effects.
Soru 1474Soru →

Anthropologist: Excavations at the ancient, strictly sedentary settlement of Kaelen have uncovered ceremonial vessels containing trace residues of the cacao plant. The Kaelen people are known to have had no contact with migratory groups. Because the cacao plant is native exclusively to regions located over five hundred miles south of Kaelen, the settlement's inhabitants must have maintained direct, long-distance trade networks extending into those southern regions to acquire the beans.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The inhabitants of Kaelen did not acquire the cacao beans through a series of short-distance exchanges involving geographically intermediate groups.

Cevap

The assumption that the inhabitants of Kaelen did not acquire the cacao beans through a series of short-distance exchanges involving geographically intermediate groups.
The correct answer properly bridges the gap between the origin of the beans and the specific nature of the trade. The author concludes that Kaelen had 'direct, long-distance trade networks'. For this to be true, we must assume they didn't just get the beans handed down through a chain of local, short-distance trades (intermediaries). If we negate this option—meaning they DID use intermediaries—then the author's conclusion that Kaelen itself maintained direct, long-distance networks is destroyed.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and the premises.
Conclusion: Kaelen maintained direct, long-distance trade networks to the south. Premises: Cacao is native only to the south (500+ miles away), Kaelen was sedentary, and they had no contact with migratory groups.
Isolating the core argument structure is the necessary first step to spot the logical leap.
2
Spot the logical gap in the reasoning.
The argument leaps directly from the fact that the beans originated far away to the conclusion that Kaelen must have traded DIRECTLY with that distant region.
Identifying the gap helps predict the necessary assumption required to bridge it.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the choices.
Negating the correct choice ('They DID acquire the beans through intermediate groups') introduces an alternative explanation that completely destroys the conclusion that they maintained 'direct' trade networks.
The Negation Technique is the definitive and most accurate test for identifying a Necessary Assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Technique
Soru 1475Soru →

Industry Analyst: Over the past fiscal year, the average cost to manufacture an electric vehicle (EV) battery fell by 20 percent. During the same period, the retail prices of EVs remained stagnant, yet the average profit margin per vehicle for EV manufacturers declined. Given that the battery constitutes the single largest share of an EV's total component costs, the financial savings from the cheaper batteries must have been completely negated by a substantial surge in the procurement costs of the EVs' non-battery components.

Which of the following would it be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Whether EV manufacturers experienced a substantial increase in per-vehicle expenses that are unrelated to the physical components of the vehicles, such as assembly labor or marketing.

Cevap

The option that asks whether EV manufacturers experienced a substantial increase in per-vehicle expenses unrelated to physical components, such as assembly labor or marketing.
The core logical flaw in the analyst's argument is a scope shift between 'total component costs' and overall per-vehicle expenses. The argument assumes that because a component cost (the battery) decreased, the offsetting increase must also come from another physical component. The correct answer applies the Variance Test perfectly: If EV manufacturers did experience a substantial increase in non-component expenses (like labor or marketing), this alternative explanation weakens the conclusion that non-battery components were responsible. Conversely, if they did not experience an increase in non-component expenses, this rules out the primary alternative, thereby strengthening the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premises: Battery costs fell 20%; EV prices remained stagnant; per-vehicle profit margins declined; batteries are the largest component cost. Conclusion: The savings from cheaper batteries must have been negated by a surge in the costs of non-battery components.
Deconstructing the argument into structural parts is the essential first step to finding logical gaps.
2
Identify the core assumption and logical flaw.
The analyst assumes that physical components are the only expenses that factor into the profit margin. They ignore non-component expenses like labor, marketing, and administration.
An Evaluate question typically targets the central assumption bridging the premises to the conclusion.
3
Apply the Variance Test to the choices.
Testing the correct option: 'Yes' (non-component expenses surged) provides an alternative cause for the declining margin, weakening the conclusion. 'No' (non-component expenses did not surge) eliminates this alternative, strengthening the conclusion.
The Variance Test is the definitive method for confirming the correct answer in Evaluate questions.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Variance Test to identify scope shifts between specific categories (component costs) and broader categories (overall per-vehicle expenses).
Soru 1476Soru →

Mayor: Our municipality is facing a critical energy shortage and must rapidly increase its power generation capacity. Critics oppose the construction of a new nuclear power facility, citing safety concerns and the high cost of waste disposal. However, if we do not construct the nuclear facility, we will be forced to rely exclusively on imported fossil fuels, which will drastically increase our greenhouse gas emissions and violate our climate commitments. Therefore, the critics are wrong, and we must proceed with the nuclear facility.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It overlooks the possibility that the municipality could increase its power generation capacity using alternative energy sources other than a nuclear facility or imported fossil fuels.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument overlooks the possibility of using alternative energy sources other than a nuclear facility or imported fossil fuels.
The argument is fundamentally flawed because it presents exactly two mutually exclusive and exhaustive options for solving the energy shortage: building a nuclear facility or relying exclusively on imported fossil fuels. By failing to consider middle-ground or alternative possibilities—such as solar, wind, geothermal energy, or conservation efforts—the argument rests on a false dichotomy.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
The conclusion is: 'We must proceed with the nuclear facility.'
This is the primary claim the mayor is trying to prove against the critics.
2
Identify the premises provided to support the conclusion.
Premise 1: The city must increase power capacity. Premise 2: If the nuclear facility is not built, the city will be forced to rely exclusively on fossil fuels. Premise 3: Relying on fossil fuels violates climate commitments.
Understanding the structure helps isolate the gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical jump between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument assumes a strict either/or scenario: either build the nuclear plant OR rely 100% on fossil fuels.
The conclusion only logically follows if there are absolutely no other ways to generate power.
4
Select the option that describes this specific vulnerability.
The correct choice identifies that the mayor fails to consider other clean energy alternatives, thereby committing a false dilemma.
Flaw questions require describing the specific structural error made by the author.

Anahtar Kavram

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy)
Soru 1477Soru →

Match each stimulus argument (Left) with the necessary supporter assumption (Right) required to logically bridge the gap between its premise and its conclusion. Note that all arguments relate to the fictional ecology of Vespera Valley, requiring careful attention to the specific logical structure of each rather than shared vocabulary.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Since the predatory Kestrel was introduced to Vespera Valley, the native Silver Vole population has plummeted. Therefore, the Silver Vole must lack the natural camouflage required to evade avian predators.
The invasive Crimson Vine in Vespera Valley aggressively outcompetes native understory plants for sunlight and soil nutrients. Consequently, the valley is currently experiencing a severe collapse in overall ecological biodiversity.
If the Vespera Valley council restricts human access to the eastern trails, the breeding grounds of the Azure Warbler will remain undisturbed. Therefore, restricting human access to those trails will protect the Azure Warbler from imminent extinction.
A recent survey of Vespera Valley reveals that the percentage of oak trees exhibiting leaf-blight is much higher in the northern quadrant than in the southern quadrant. Clearly, the northern quadrant has experienced higher volumes of acidic rainfall.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match each stimulus to the assumption that connects its unique premise to its unique conclusion. The Kestrel argument pairs with the camouflage assumption; the Crimson Vine argument pairs with the biodiversity assumption; the Azure Warbler argument pairs with the extinction assumption; and the oak tree argument pairs with the acidic rainfall assumption.
Each correct pair represents a classic Supporter Assumption relationship. In each stimulus, the author introduces a completely new concept in the conclusion (camouflage, biodiversity collapse, imminent extinction, acidic rainfall) that was not established by the premises. A valid Supporter Assumption must act as a missing premise, explicitly linking the evidence provided to the new concept introduced in the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the conclusion of the first argument and identify any 'rogue' elements—concepts that appear in the conclusion but were never mentioned in the premises.
In the Kestrel argument, 'lack the natural camouflage' is the rogue element.
A Supporter Assumption must explicitly bridge the gap between the new information in the conclusion and the established facts in the premises.
2
Scan the available assumptions for a statement that explicitly links the premise to the rogue conclusion element.
The assumption regarding a plummeting prey population lacking 'natural camouflage' perfectly bridges the gap for the Kestrel argument.
This establishes the necessary conditional relationship to make the conclusion logically valid.
3
Repeat this process for the remaining arguments, ignoring shared domain vocabulary (like 'Vespera Valley') and focusing strictly on the logical leaps.
The 'collapse in ecological biodiversity' links to 'displacement of understory plants'; 'protection from extinction' links to 'undisturbed breeding grounds'; and 'acidic rainfall' links to 'leaf-blight'.
In complex matching scenarios where all items share a theme, structural mapping prevents falling for semantic distractors.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions
Soru 1478Soru →

Read the following argument carefully:

A translation of a literary work can preserve the original text's aesthetic impact only if it abandons strict literal accuracy. Any translation that abandons strict literal accuracy necessarily introduces the translator's own cultural biases. Furthermore, the introduction of the translator's own cultural biases invariably distorts the original author's philosophical intent. Therefore, any algorithmic translation system designed to maximize fidelity to the original author's philosophical intent will fail to evoke an emotional response in its readers.

Evaluate the logical validity of the following claim:
The argument's conclusion logically follows if it is assumed both that any translation avoiding the distortion of the author's philosophical intent is one designed to maximize fidelity to that intent, and that failing to preserve a literary work's aesthetic impact guarantees a failure to evoke an emotional response in its readers.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false. The argument requires us to prove that Maximizing Fidelity (MF) guarantees Failing to Evoke Emotion (FEE). The premises establish that Avoiding Distortion (~DI) guarantees Failing to Preserve Aesthetic (~PA). The second provided assumption correctly bridges the end of the chain (~PA → FEE). However, the first assumption states that Avoiding Distortion (~DI) guarantees Maximizing Fidelity (MF). This logically means ~DI leads to both MF and FEE. But to reach the conclusion, we must start at MF and reach FEE. Because we cannot trace the logic backward from MF to ~DI, the argument remains unproven.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the conditional premises to establish the main deductive chain.
Preserve Aesthetic (PA) → Abandon Literal (AL) → Introduce Bias (IB) → Distort Intent (DI). Simplified: PA → DI.
Tracking formal conditional logic is necessary to evaluate exactly what the premises prove.
2
Determine the contrapositive of the main chain.
Not Distort Intent (~DI) → Not Preserve Aesthetic (~PA).
The conclusion deals with terms ('maximize fidelity' and 'fail to evoke emotion') that logically align with the negative versions of the premise terms.
3
Identify the exact logical gaps between the premises and the conclusion.
The conclusion claims: Maximize Fidelity (MF) → Fail to Evoke Emotion (FEE). We need to connect MF to ~DI, and ~PA to FEE.
A sufficient assumption must completely bridge the premises to the new terms in the conclusion in the correct direction.
4
Translate and evaluate the two assumptions provided in the statement.
Assumption 1: ~DI → MF (Any avoiding distortion is one maximizing fidelity). Assumption 2: ~PA → FEE (Failing to preserve guarantees failure to evoke).
We must test if these assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion when added to the premises.
5
Test if the assumptions complete the deductive chain.
We have ~DI → MF (Assumption 1) and ~DI → ~PA (Premises) → FEE (Assumption 2). This does NOT prove MF → FEE. The first assumption is backwards.
To prove MF → FEE, we needed MF → ~DI. Because the provided assumption is reversed, it fails to guarantee the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying illegal reversals within complex conditional chains and evaluating sufficient assumptions that must bridge multiple logical gaps.
Soru 1479Soru →

Match each flawed argument below to the abstract description that most accurately identifies its logical error.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Anyone who gets the promotion will buy a new car. Therefore, since Sarah bought a new car, she must have gotten the promotion.
If the company increases its marketing budget, profits will rise. However, the company will not increase its marketing budget, so profits will certainly not rise.
The symphony orchestra is known worldwide for its flawless timing. Therefore, the orchestra's newly hired violinist must have flawless timing.
We should reject Dr. Smith's findings regarding the new food additive. After all, Dr. Smith was recently involved in a highly publicized tax evasion scandal.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 matches with treating a necessary condition as sufficient; Argument 2 matches with confusing the lack of a sufficient condition for the lack of a necessary condition; Argument 3 matches with the whole-to-part composition error; Argument 4 matches with the ad hominem source attack.
Each argument perfectly models one of the classic logical flaws tested on the LSAT: illegal reversal, illegal negation, composition (whole-to-part), and ad hominem. The corresponding abstract descriptions accurately summarize these precise structural errors without relying on the specific subject matter.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first argument's conditional structure.
Identify it as a conditional reasoning flaw where the necessary condition is used to incorrectly guarantee the sufficient condition.
To match it with the 'necessary treated as sufficient' description.
2
Analyze the second argument's conditional structure.
Identify it as a conditional reasoning flaw where the denial of the sufficient condition is incorrectly used to deny the necessary condition.
To match it with the 'sufficient condition not met' description.
3
Analyze the scope of the third argument.
Identify it as a composition flaw where an attribute of the orchestra is incorrectly applied to an individual member.
To match it with the 'characteristic of a group applied to a member' description.
4
Analyze the focus of the fourth argument.
Identify it as a source argument flaw where the author attacks the researcher instead of the research.
To match it with the 'dismissing a conclusion based on personal flaws' description.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying abstract logical flaws within varied arguments.
Soru 1480Soru →

Political Analyst: Historical data from our city's elections over the past five decades demonstrates a remarkably consistent pattern. To win the mayoral election, a candidate must secure the official endorsement of the city's largest and most influential labor union. Mayor Thorne, despite some early campaign missteps, managed to secure this critical endorsement just last week. Therefore, despite the current competitiveness of the race, it is virtually certain that Mayor Thorne will win reelection in the upcoming cycle.

Determine whether the following analytical statement accurately describes the logical flaw committed in the stimulus:

The political analyst's reasoning is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it infers that a condition is necessary for a particular outcome from the fact that this condition is sufficient to produce that outcome.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The statement is false.
The provided statement is false because it perfectly reverses the actual flaw in the argument. The stimulus explicitly states that the endorsement is a requirement, establishing it as a necessary condition for victory. The analyst then concludes that having the endorsement guarantees victory, thereby treating this necessary condition as a sufficient condition. The analytical statement provided describes the exact opposite error—inferring necessity from sufficiency. Because it reverses the direction of the conditional error, it fails to accurately describe the argument's specific vulnerability.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional logic provided in the political analyst's premise.
The premise states 'a candidate must secure the official endorsement', meaning the endorsement is formally established as a necessary condition for winning the election.
Identifying the established conditions is required to evaluate the structural validity of the argument's conclusion.
2
Analyze the logical leap made in the conclusion.
The conclusion asserts that because Mayor Thorne secured the endorsement, she is 'virtually certain' to win. This effectively treats the endorsement as a sufficient condition for victory.
Comparing the premise to the conclusion reveals that the analyst treats a necessary condition as if it were a sufficient condition.
3
Evaluate the provided analytical statement against the identified flaw.
The statement claims the argument infers necessity from sufficiency. In reality, the argument infers sufficiency from necessity. Therefore, the description is backward and logically inaccurate.
To accurately describe a flaw on the LSAT, a statement must capture the precise direction of the logical error committed.

Anahtar Kavram

Directionality of Formal Logic Flaws (Illegal Reversal vs. Illegal Negation)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
ÖncekiSayfa 74 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin