Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 1621Soru →

Consider the following argument:

Tech Analyst: Working in the office clearly makes InnovateCorp's employees more productive than working remotely. After all, the company's overall productivity increased by 15% last year, which is the exact same year they abandoned their fully remote policy and mandated that all employees work from the office four days a week.

Statement: To logically draw this conclusion, the analyst must assume that InnovateCorp did not also deploy a highly efficient new workflow software last year that drastically reduced the time required to complete routine tasks.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is True. The argument makes a causal claim based entirely on a simultaneous occurrence. For this claim to be logically valid, alternative causes for the productivity increase must be ruled out. Applying the Negation Technique proves this: if the company DID deploy the new efficiency software, that alternative cause would perfectly explain the productivity increase and destroy the analyst's conclusion. Therefore, assuming the software was NOT deployed is a strictly necessary assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the supporting premises.
Conclusion: Working in the office makes employees more productive. Premise: Productivity increased by 15% during the same year the company mandated returning to the office.
Understanding the exact boundaries of the argument's claim is required before evaluating assumptions.
2
Recognize the underlying method of reasoning.
The argument uses a temporal correlation (office mandate + productivity increase happening at the same time) to assert a definitive causal relationship.
Identifying causal reasoning highlights potential vulnerabilities in the argument, such as unstated alternative causes.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the provided statement.
Negated statement: InnovateCorp DID deploy a highly efficient new workflow software last year that drastically reduced the time required to complete routine tasks.
The Negation Test is the definitive, foolproof method for proving if an assumption is strictly necessary to an argument.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the argument's conclusion.
If the efficiency software was deployed, it provides an alternative explanation for the 15% productivity increase, completely severing the assumed link between the office mandate and the productivity boost. Thus, assuming it did NOT happen is necessary.
If negating a statement destroys the validity of the argument, the original statement is a logically necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Defender Assumptions and the Negation Technique in Causal Arguments
Soru 1622Soru →

Over the last six months, Apex Delivery Company replaced its manual sorting facility with a new automated system that processes packages 50% faster. Surprisingly, despite this significant improvement in sorting speed, the company's average delivery time per package has increased during this same period.

Statement: The apparent paradox described above would be deepened if it were discovered that Apex recently hired a large fleet of new delivery drivers and optimized its delivery routes, significantly reducing the transit time from the sorting facility to the customer.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The correct answer is True because the paradox is based on delivery times increasing despite faster sorting. If transit times were also reduced by hiring more drivers, then both major phases of delivery became faster. This makes the overall increase in delivery time even more inexplicable, actively deepening the paradox.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the two conflicting facts that create the apparent paradox.
Fact 1: Sorting speed increased by 50%. Fact 2: Overall average delivery time per package increased.
Understanding the discrepancy is necessary before evaluating how new information affects it.
2
Determine the criteria for a fact to deepen the paradox.
A fact deepens the paradox if it provides another reason why the unexpected outcome (increased delivery time) should NOT have happened.
This establishes a framework for evaluating the provided statement.
3
Analyze the effect of the new information provided in the statement.
The new information states that transit times were significantly reduced due to more drivers and optimized routes.
We must evaluate how this new premise interacts with the original conflicting facts.
4
Conclude whether the new information resolves or deepens the paradox.
Since both sorting and transit are now faster, an overall increase in delivery time makes even less sense. Therefore, the new information deepens the paradox.
This confirms that the statement provided in the stem is logically true.

Anahtar Kavram

Eliminating Paradox-Deepening Traps
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 1623Soru →

Historically, Western legal systems have strictly limited the concept of "legal personhood"—the capacity to possess rights and responsibilities—to human beings and corporations. Recently, however, a novel paradigm has emerged in environmental jurisprudence, wherein natural entities such as rivers and forests have been legally recognized as persons. Critics argue that such designations are confusing and primarily performative, doing little to alter the material realities of environmental degradation. But this view is fundamentally misguided. While critics often dismiss the extension of legal personhood to natural entities as a purely symbolic gesture, this legal innovation in fact functions as a crucial pragmatic mechanism, enabling ecosystems to seek direct judicial redress for ecological harm. By possessing independent legal standing, a river can now be represented in court by appointed guardians to sue polluters directly, bypassing the traditionally arduous requirement of proving that environmental damage explicitly caused quantifiable harm to human property or health.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the central thesis of the passage?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The recognition of natural entities as legal persons is not a merely symbolic act, but a practical mechanism that allows ecosystems to pursue direct judicial redress for environmental damage.

Cevap

The recognition of natural entities as legal persons is not a merely symbolic act, but a practical mechanism that allows ecosystems to pursue direct judicial redress for environmental damage.
The correct answer accurately synthesizes the author's explicitly stated thesis. In the middle of the passage, the author pivots from the critics' viewpoint and states: 'While critics often dismiss the extension of legal personhood to natural entities as a purely symbolic gesture, this legal innovation in fact functions as a crucial pragmatic mechanism, enabling ecosystems to seek direct judicial redress for ecological harm.' The correct option perfectly mirrors this dual assertion: rejecting the idea that it is merely symbolic, and affirming its role as a practical legal mechanism.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the primary subject and context of the passage.
The passage discusses the recent legal trend of granting 'legal personhood' to natural entities like rivers and forests.
Understanding the core topic is necessary to evaluate the author's stance on it.
2
Locate the author's specific viewpoint or argument, distinguishing it from attributed views.
The author introduces the critics' view ('primarily performative') and explicitly rejects it ('But this view is fundamentally misguided').
Main point questions require isolating the author's actual conclusion from the background information or opposing arguments.
3
Identify the explicit thesis statement formulated by the author.
The author's thesis is explicitly stated: 'While critics often dismiss the extension of legal personhood... this legal innovation in fact functions as a crucial pragmatic mechanism, enabling ecosystems to seek direct judicial redress...'
Finding the explicit thesis sentence guarantees accuracy when selecting the matching answer choice.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that comprehensively matches the explicit thesis without focusing too narrowly on supporting details.
The correct answer perfectly captures the contrast between the symbolic view and the author's pragmatic view.
Distractors often present true statements from the text that function as premises rather than the overarching conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the author's explicit thesis and distinguishing it from background context, supporting premises, and opposing viewpoints.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1624Soru →

Match each of the following short passage excerpts to the statement that most accurately expresses its implicit main point.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Electric vehicles (EVs) produce zero tailpipe emissions, which is crucial for reducing urban air pollution. However, the mining of lithium and cobalt required for their batteries often leads to severe water contamination and soil degradation in developing nations.
The proposed tax cut would put more money in the hands of consumers, theoretically boosting retail sales. Yet, independent analysts warn that the resulting deficit would force severe reductions in funding for public infrastructure and education.
Artificial intelligence can analyze medical scans much faster than human doctors, potentially accelerating diagnosis. However, algorithmic biases present in the training data have been shown to misdiagnose certain demographic groups at alarmingly high rates.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The first passage matches with the statement about green technology and ecological costs. The second passage matches with the statement about fiscal strategy and civic institutions. The third passage matches with the statement about analytical tools and fairness of outcomes.
Each correct match requires synthesizing the first sentence (a stated benefit) and the second sentence (a contrasting drawback) of the excerpt to identify the unstated overall conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first passage
Identified the topic as environmental technology (EVs) and the structure as a benefit followed by a significant ecological drawback.
To synthesize the implicit main point of the first text.
2
Find the matching statement for the first passage
Matched with the statement about a 'green technology' involving 'hidden ecological costs'.
This statement accurately captures both premises of the first passage.
3
Analyze the second passage
Identified the topic as an economic policy (tax cut) and the structure as a short-term retail benefit contrasted with a long-term infrastructure threat.
To synthesize the implicit main point of the second text.
4
Find the matching statement for the second passage
Matched with the statement regarding a 'fiscal strategy' threatening 'civic institutions'.
This statement summarizes the trade-offs presented in the second passage.
5
Analyze the third passage
Identified the topic as medical technology (AI) and the structure as speed benefits contrasted with bias risks.
To synthesize the implicit main point of the third text.
6
Find the matching statement for the third passage
Matched with the statement about 'analytical tools' improving speed but compromising 'fairness'.
This statement encompasses the nuanced conclusion implied by the third passage's premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Implicit Main Point Synthesis
Soru 1625Soru →

Organizational Researcher: A recent study analyzed the productivity of software development teams at several major technology firms. The study found that teams utilizing 'OpenSpace'—a novel, unstructured collaborative software environment—shipped on average 20 percent more product updates per quarter than teams using traditional, highly structured project management software. Clearly, adopting OpenSpace inherently increases a team's productivity by fostering spontaneous collaboration.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the organizational researcher's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Tech firms typically restrict the use of unstructured environments like OpenSpace to teams that have already demonstrated the highest levels of baseline productivity.

Cevap

The correct answer is the statement indicating that firms restrict OpenSpace to teams that have already demonstrated the highest levels of baseline productivity.
The argument concludes that adopting OpenSpace causes an increase in productivity, based solely on the correlational evidence that teams currently using OpenSpace are more productive. The correct answer undermines this by introducing a severe selection bias: if only the most highly productive teams are allowed to use OpenSpace in the first place, then their high productivity was a pre-existing condition, not a result of the software. This demonstrates reverse causation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument, explicitly defining the premises and the main conclusion.
Premise: Teams using OpenSpace shipped 20% more updates than those using traditional software. Conclusion: Adopting OpenSpace increases productivity by fostering spontaneous collaboration.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to pinpoint the logical gap between the evidence provided and the absolute claim made.
2
Analyze the logical reasoning and identify the central flaw or gap.
The argument observes a correlation between using OpenSpace and higher productivity, and leaps to the conclusion that OpenSpace actively causes the higher productivity.
Identifying the causal leap (assuming correlation implies causation) reveals how the argument is most vulnerable to counter-evidence.
3
Determine what type of information would most effectively weaken this specific causal conclusion.
A statement showing an alternative cause, indicating reverse causation, or demonstrating selection bias in the study's data would severely weaken the conclusion.
If another factor explains the 20% difference, the researcher's specific claim that the software is the cause is fundamentally undermined.
4
Evaluate the answer choices against the required weakener profile.
The correct option shows that teams were already highly productive before adopting OpenSpace, meaning high productivity caused the use of OpenSpace, not the reverse.
This directly attacks the direction of the causal relationship assumed by the researcher without contradicting the premise that OpenSpace teams are currently shipping more updates.

Anahtar Kavram

Causal Reasoning and Alternate Explanations
Soru 1626Soru →

Historically, the English common law doctrine of riparian rights—which granted water use strictly to those who owned land adjacent to a waterway—governed water allocation in the United States. This system, while functional in the humid climates of the eastern states, proved disastrously inadequate for the arid conditions of the American West. In response to these geographical realities, a novel legal framework known as the doctrine of prior appropriation emerged during the mid-nineteenth century. Based on the principle of "first in time, first in right," this doctrine allowed individuals to divert water from its natural course for beneficial use, regardless of land ownership.

For decades, legal historians have romantically characterized the doctrine of prior appropriation as a spontaneous, egalitarian invention of independent pioneer miners who devised grassroots rules to fairly share a scarce resource. According to this traditional view, the doctrine was a triumph of democratic frontier pragmatism over rigid, elitist common law. However, this idealized narrative fundamentally misconstrues the doctrine's origins. In reality, the legal architecture of prior appropriation was deliberately engineered and codified primarily by heavily capitalized corporate mining syndicates to secure monopolies over vast water networks and protect their industrial investments.

The evidence for this corporate orchestration is abundant, albeit long overlooked. While small-scale miners initially established rudimentary rules, it was the massive hydraulic mining companies that subsequently lobbied territorial legislatures and courts to formalize prior appropriation into binding statute. These corporations required absolute certainty of water rights before committing to the immense costs of constructing extensive flumes and dams. By championing a system where water rights could be severed from land and sold as independent commodities, these syndicates ensured that water would inevitably flow toward concentrated capital, thereby fundamentally transforming a vital public resource into an instrument of corporate consolidation.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The doctrine of prior appropriation was not an egalitarian creation of frontier miners, but rather a legal framework engineered and codified by corporate mining interests to monopolize water resources.

Cevap

The correct answer accurately states that the doctrine of prior appropriation was not an egalitarian creation of frontier miners, but rather a legal framework engineered and codified by corporate mining interests to monopolize water resources.
The passage is structured around debunking a historical myth. After establishing the context of water laws, the author introduces the traditional view of prior appropriation as an egalitarian, democratic invention. The author then explicitly states their thesis: 'In reality, the legal architecture of prior appropriation was deliberately engineered... by heavily capitalized corporate mining syndicates to secure monopolies...' The correct answer directly paraphrases this central, explicitly stated thesis.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the passage structure to locate the core argument.
The first paragraph provides historical background. The second paragraph introduces a traditional view and then explicitly pivots to the author's thesis using 'However... In reality...'. The third paragraph provides historical evidence to support this thesis.
Identifying the structural flow separates context and opposing viewpoints from the author's primary contention.
2
Extract the explicitly stated thesis.
The explicit thesis is found at the end of the second paragraph: 'the legal architecture of prior appropriation was deliberately engineered and codified primarily by heavily capitalized corporate mining syndicates to secure monopolies...'
An explicit main point question requires finding the exact sentence where the author states their overarching claim.
3
Evaluate the options against the extracted thesis.
The correct option synthesizes the rejection of the traditional view (not an egalitarian creation) with the author's explicit claim (engineered by corporate interests to monopolize resources).
The correct answer must accurately reflect the passage's central thesis without being too narrow (a supporting detail) or too broad (extrapolating beyond the text).

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the author's explicit thesis and distinguishing it from attributed viewpoints and subsidiary evidence.
Soru 1627Soru →

Review the provided statements from four different individuals. Each statement contains exactly one distinct logical reasoning error. Pair each speaker's argument with the abstract description that correctly characterizes its fundamental flaw.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Sociologist: A comprehensive ten-year study of municipal employees revealed that those who regularly participate in the city's voluntary physical wellness program take significantly fewer sick days on average than those who do not participate. Therefore, it is clear that participating in the wellness program effectively boosts the immune systems of its participants, causing them to fall ill less frequently.
Retail Analyst: Data spanning the last decade shows that whenever a mid-sized retail store remains highly profitable for consecutive years, it consistently offers excellent customer service. Consequently, if our newly opened electronics boutique makes excellent customer service its top priority, the boutique is guaranteed to become a highly profitable business.
Police Chief: Residents have expressed concern about a rising wave of youth crime in our district. However, these fears are unfounded. Over the last five years, the percentage of overall crimes committed by juveniles in this district has dropped substantially, from 18 percent down to just 9 percent. Clearly, there are far fewer juvenile offenders on our streets today than there were five years ago.
Art Critic: The gallery director insists that this new sculpture is a profound masterpiece because it is entirely original. But her evaluation is obviously incorrect. The sculpture is constructed completely out of recycled industrial scrap metal and repurposed engine parts. Since all of its materials have been used before, absolutely nothing about the sculpture is original.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Sociologist's argument matches the correlation/causation flaw description; the Retail Analyst's argument matches the necessary/sufficient flaw description; the Police Chief's argument matches the absolute quantity/relative proportion flaw description; and the Art Critic's argument matches the shifting meaning/equivocation flaw description.
Each argument stimulus demonstrates a classic logical fallacy. The Sociologist assumes causation from correlation. The Retail Analyst confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. The Police Chief conflates a relative proportion with an absolute number. The Art Critic shifts the meaning of the word 'original' mid-argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Sociologist's argument to identify the core logical flaw.
The argument concludes that the wellness program causes a boost in the immune system based on a statistical correlation.
This is a classic Correlation vs. Causation flaw. It fails to consider that healthier individuals may self-select into the program.
2
Analyze the Retail Analyst's argument to identify the core logical flaw.
The argument states that highly profitable stores always offer excellent service, then concludes that offering excellent service guarantees high profitability.
This is a Conditional Logic flaw, specifically confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition (illegal reversal).
3
Analyze the Police Chief's argument to identify the core logical flaw.
The argument cites a drop in the relative percentage of crimes committed by juveniles to conclude that the absolute number of juvenile offenders has decreased.
This is a Percentages vs. Numbers flaw. A smaller proportion of a much larger total could equal a larger absolute number.
4
Analyze the Art Critic's argument to identify the core logical flaw.
The argument attacks the claim that the sculpture is 'original' (meaning creative/novel) by pointing out its materials are recycled (not 'original' materials).
This is an Equivocation flaw, relying on two different definitions of the word 'original' to construct its critique.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical flaws involve identifiable reasoning errors, such as confusing correlation with causation, mistaking necessary conditions for sufficient ones, conflating proportions with raw numbers, and equivocating on key terms.
Soru 1628Soru →

Art Conservator: We must decide whether to apply the newly developed Xylol treatment to the decaying municipal mural. Applying the treatment will permanently alter the texture of the original paint. However, if we do not apply the treatment, the mural will crumble completely within five years, meaning future generations will be unable to view it. Since ensuring that future generations can view the mural is more important than preserving the original texture of the paint, the city ought to apply the treatment.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the art conservator's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A preservation treatment ought to be applied if it is necessary to achieve a goal that is more important than any goal whose achievement is thwarted by the treatment.

Cevap

The correct answer is the principle stating that a preservation treatment ought to be applied if it is necessary to achieve a goal that is more important than any goal whose achievement is thwarted by the treatment.
This option provides a sufficient conditional rule that perfectly bridges the premises to the conclusion. The argument establishes that applying the treatment is necessary for future viewability (because without it, the mural crumbles). It also establishes that this viewability goal is more important than the goal of preserving original texture, which the treatment thwarts. By stating that a treatment 'ought to be applied' under these exact conditions, this principle logically guarantees the conservator's conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the argument.
Premise 1: Applying treatment thwarts preserving original texture. Premise 2: Not applying it thwarts future viewability (making the treatment necessary for viewability). Premise 3: Viewability is more important than original texture. Conclusion: Ought to apply treatment.
Identifying the premises and conclusion is the first step in finding the logical gap.
2
Identify the logical gap.
The argument jumps from a comparative value judgment (viewability is more important than texture) to a prescriptive mandate (ought to apply treatment).
A Justify principle must provide a formal rule that guarantees the prescriptive mandate based on the given premises.
3
Formulate the required bridging principle.
We need a sufficient condition stating that if an action is necessary to achieve a more important goal, even if it thwarts a less important one, it ought to be taken.
This directly connects the evidence in the stimulus to the conclusion without leaving room for exceptions.
4
Evaluate the options against the formulated principle.
The correct option provides the exact sufficient condition required. Distractors offer necessary conditions, illegal negations, or introduce irrelevant terms like 'aesthetic improvements'.
Only a sufficient bridging principle formally justifies the conclusion in an LSAT Principle - Justify question.

Anahtar Kavram

Principle - Justify: Sufficient Bridging Rules
Soru 1629Soru →

Consider the following scenario often found in Logical Reasoning questions asking to resolve an apparent discrepancy.

Premise A: Last year, the city of Oakhaven banned heavy commercial trucks from driving through the downtown district in order to reduce road wear and tear.
Premise B: Over the following year, the total amount of severe pavement damage on downtown roads increased by 30%30\%.

Match each candidate explanation below to the exact logical role it plays in relation to this apparent discrepancy.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

To comply with the ban, delivery companies replaced each large truck with ten smaller vans, significantly increasing the total cumulative vehicle weight on downtown roads.
The city council enacted the truck ban primarily because downtown residents had organized a massive petition against the noise pollution caused by commercial vehicles.
The structural integrity of asphalt roads naturally degrades over time due to constant exposure to ultraviolet radiation and normal weather fluctuations.
Concurrent with the truck ban, the city entirely repaved the downtown district using a revolutionary new polymer-asphalt blend designed to be twice as durable as standard materials.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The statement about replacing trucks with vans reconciles the paradox. The statement about the noise petition is a one-sided trap explaining Premise A. The statement about ultraviolet radiation is a one-sided trap explaining Premise B. The statement about the new polymer-asphalt deepens the discrepancy.
By explicitly analyzing the logical function of each statement, we can see that a true resolution must bridge the two conflicting premises. Traps in paradox questions frequently rely on one-sided explanations that provide background for one premise while leaving the actual contradiction unaddressed.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the core discrepancy in the stimulus.
The expectation is that banning heavy trucks (Premise A) should decrease road damage, but instead damage increased by 30% (Premise B).
A valid resolution must explain how both of these facts can be true simultaneously without contradicting either one.
2
Evaluate the statement regarding smaller vans replacing trucks.
This matches 'Reconciles the paradox'.
It explains that the ban (Premise A) inadvertently led to a massive increase in total vehicle weight, which logically results in more road damage (Premise B).
3
Evaluate the statement regarding the noise pollution petition.
This matches 'Acts as a one-sided trap by explaining the motivation for Premise A'.
It provides context for why the trucks were banned but is entirely silent on the issue of physical road damage.
4
Evaluate the statement regarding ultraviolet radiation.
This matches 'Acts as a one-sided trap by offering a general mechanism for Premise B'.
While it explains how roads degrade generally, UV radiation is a constant factor and does not explain a sudden 30% spike in damage right after a protective measure was taken.
5
Evaluate the statement regarding the new polymer-asphalt blend.
This matches 'Deepens the apparent discrepancy'.
Installing highly durable pavement means road damage should have plummeted. The fact that it increased by 30% anyway makes the situation even more baffling.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the precise logical role of trap answers in paradox questions, specifically recognizing explanations that account for only one side of the discrepancy.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1630Soru →

During the late Bronze Age, the city-state of Olaria experienced a massive, decade-long drought that decimated its local agricultural output, which was heavily dependent on rainfall. Historical records confirm a severe shortage of domestically grown grain during this time. Yet, archaeological excavations of Olarian households from this period reveal that the average citizen consumed significantly more grain than in the agriculturally prosperous decades preceding the drought.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: During the drought, Olaria's rulers suspended heavy tariffs on food imports, making foreign grain from distant, unaffected empires much cheaper and more abundant than locally grown grain had ever been.

Cevap

The statement regarding the suspension of tariffs on food imports, which made foreign grain cheaper and more abundant.
The correct answer resolves the discrepancy by introducing a new, external source of grain. Even though local production was decimated by the drought, the suspension of import tariffs made foreign grain cheaper and more abundant than local grain had ever been. This logically explains how the average citizen could afford and consume more grain despite the massive local agricultural shortage.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the apparent discrepancy in the stimulus.
Local grain production was severely shortened by a drought, but the average citizen consumed more grain than they did during prosperous times.
Understanding the two conflicting facts is the first mandatory step in finding a logical resolution.
2
Determine what is required to successfully resolve the paradox.
The correct answer must explain where the extra grain came from despite the severe local crop failure.
A valid resolution must fully account for both the increased consumption and the local agricultural collapse.
3
Evaluate the choices to find the one that reconciles both facts.
The statement about suspended tariffs introduces a new, highly affordable source of grain via imports, explaining how consumption could increase despite local crop failures.
This completely bridges the gap between local shortage and increased consumption without violating any established premises.
4
Actively eliminate paradox-deepening traps and one-sided explanations.
The choice about river trade routes being cut off is eliminated because it deepens the paradox by removing a potential source of imported grain. The choice about fruit failure is eliminated because it only explains the demand side.
An answer that makes the conflicting facts harder to reconcile is a trap, as is an answer that ignores half of the discrepancy.

Anahtar Kavram

To resolve a paradox, the correct answer must provide new information that allows both seemingly conflicting facts to coexist simultaneously without contradicting either one.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1631Soru →

For generations, political scientists have invoked the 1648 Peace of Westphalia as the definitive bedrock of modern international relations, traditionally arguing that the treaties birthed the modern system of inviolable state sovereignty. In this orthodox view, Westphalia established a categorical prohibition against external interference in a state's domestic affairs, effectively granting monarchs absolute authority within their territorial borders. Consequently, contemporary legal scholars often frame the late-twentieth-century rise of international human rights law—which permits intervention in cases of severe domestic abuse—as a radical rupture with a rigid Westphalian tradition.

However, recent historical analysis reveals that this conventional narrative relies on a fundamental misreading of the actual treaties. The Westphalian agreements contained numerous provisions that explicitly guaranteed the religious rights of minorities within sovereign territories, authorizing signatory states to intervene if a sovereign violated these protections. These mechanisms were not mere diplomatic window-dressing but were actively invoked in the decades following the settlement. Therefore, the prevailing consensus requires revision: rather than inaugurating an era of absolute non-intervention, the Westphalian settlement established a legal framework in which sovereign legitimacy was intrinsically conditioned upon adherence to specific cross-border obligations, prefiguring rather than precluding modern interventionist doctrines. While it is true that Westphalia formalized territorial boundaries in ways previously unseen, equating this with absolute internal autonomy ignores the intricate system of mutual accountability the treaties actually codified.

Which of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Contrary to the orthodox historical narrative, the Peace of Westphalia did not establish absolute state sovereignty, but rather created a system in which sovereign legitimacy depended on international obligations, laying a precedent for modern interventionist doctrines.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that contrary to the orthodox historical narrative, the Peace of Westphalia created a system in which sovereign legitimacy depended on international obligations, laying a precedent for modern interventionist doctrines.
The correct answer accurately synthesizes the author's explicit thesis, found in the final paragraph, which asserts that the Westphalian settlement conditioned sovereignty on cross-border obligations and thereby prefigured modern intervention. It perfectly captures both the rejection of the traditional view and the assertion of the new interpretation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the passage to distinguish the author's voice from attributed viewpoints.
The first paragraph describes an 'orthodox view' held by political scientists and legal scholars, while the second paragraph introduces the author's perspective based on 'recent historical analysis'.
Identifying viewpoint shifts is essential in Reading Comprehension to avoid mistakenly selecting an answer that represents a viewpoint the author rejects.
2
Locate the author's explicit thesis statement.
The thesis is clearly marked by a conclusion indicator in the second paragraph: 'Therefore, the prevailing consensus requires revision: rather than inaugurating an era of absolute non-intervention, the Westphalian settlement established a legal framework in which sovereign legitimacy was intrinsically conditioned upon adherence to specific cross-border obligations...'
The question specifically asks for the main point, which in heavily structured argumentative passages is usually explicitly synthesized after presenting counter-evidence.
3
Evaluate the options against the identified thesis statement, carefully checking for scope, accuracy, and viewpoint alignment.
Only the correct option captures the author's revision of the historical narrative without exaggerating the scope or focusing on subsidiary details.
Incorrect options typically rely on common traps: representing a supporting premise (subsidiary point), exaggerating the author's claims (too broad), or repeating familiar words from the passage out of their logical context.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the author's explicit thesis while distinguishing it from attributed opposing viewpoints and supporting premises.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1632Soru →

Read the following passage:

(1) For much of the twentieth century, academic historians largely dismissed oral traditions as unreliable sources for reconstructing the past, favoring written documents as the only objective records. (2) This skepticism was rooted in the belief that oral narratives are inherently malleable, subject to memory failures, and inevitably distorted by contemporary political agendas. (3) Consequently, the histories of societies without extensive written records were often marginalized or told exclusively from the perspective of literate outside observers. (4) In recent decades, however, the methodological landscape of historiography has shifted significantly. (5) Historians now recognize that while oral traditions require rigorous corroboration, they provide vital access to the internal perspectives and cultural paradigms of non-literate societies that written colonial records fundamentally lack. (6) By employing comparative linguistic analysis and cross-referencing oral accounts with archaeological evidence, scholars have demonstrated that oral histories often preserve remarkably accurate records of historical events.

Which sentence explicitly states the author's main point in the passage? Provide the sentence number only.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: 5; five; Sentence 5; Sentence five; (5)

Cevap

Sentence 5
Sentence 5 perfectly captures the author's explicit main point. It moves past the context of the older viewpoint (Sentences 1-3) and the transitional pivot (Sentence 4) to state the actual claim: oral traditions are now recognized as vital for accessing non-literate cultures' perspectives, even though they require corroboration. Sentence 6 merely provides evidence for this claim.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the passage structure to identify the context and different viewpoints.
Sentences 1 through 3 describe an older, opposing viewpoint that dismissed oral traditions in historical research.
Identifying the author's viewpoint requires distinguishing it from the views they are criticizing or modifying.
2
Locate the structural pivot where the author introduces their perspective.
Sentence 4 acts as a transition, shifting the focus to a new methodological approach.
Transitional words like 'however' often signal a shift toward the author's main argument.
3
Identify the specific sentence that synthesizes the author's primary claim.
Sentence 5 explicitly states the thesis: oral traditions provide vital historical access that written records lack, despite needing corroboration.
The main point must encapsulate the central argument rather than just signaling a shift or providing supporting evidence.
4
Evaluate the remaining sentences to ensure they are subsidiary to the thesis.
Sentence 6 provides specific methodological examples (linguistic analysis, archaeological evidence) that support the claim in Sentence 5.
A thesis statement is a broad claim supported by premises, not a specific premise itself.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the explicit thesis by distinguishing it from opposing viewpoints, structural pivots, and supporting premises.
Soru 1633Soru →

Every individual component used in the assembly of the X-7 prototype spacecraft is light enough to be easily lifted by a single technician. Therefore, the fully assembled X-7 prototype spacecraft is light enough to be easily lifted by a single technician.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The director's new movie must be very brief in its total runtime, because every single scene in the film is very brief, lasting no more than two minutes.

Cevap

The correct argument is the one concluding that the movie is very brief because every single scene is very brief.
The stimulus commits the Fallacy of Composition by assuming that because every individual component (part) is lightweight, the assembled spacecraft (whole) must also be lightweight. This fails to recognize that weight is additive. The correct answer perfectly parallels this exact part-to-whole flaw by concluding that because every individual scene (part) is brief, the movie itself (whole) must be brief, failing to recognize that duration is also additive.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to identify its core reasoning structure and logical flaw.
The argument assumes that because every individual part (spacecraft components) has a specific characteristic (light enough to be lifted), the whole (the fully assembled spacecraft) must logically have that same characteristic.
Identifying the specific flaw type is the necessary first step in any Parallel Flaw question. This is the Fallacy of Composition: inappropriately projecting a property of the parts onto the whole.
2
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that replicates this exact part-to-whole flawed structure.
Look for an argument where the premise describes a characteristic of individual parts, and the conclusion illegitimately applies that same characteristic to the aggregate entity.
Parallel Flaw questions strictly require matching the logical error structure, regardless of the order in which the premises and conclusion are presented.
3
Identify the matching argument among the options.
The argument about the movie assumes that because the parts (individual scenes) are brief, the whole (the entire movie) is brief. This perfectly matches the composition flaw found in the stimulus.
The logical structure is identical: Part has additive property Y, therefore Whole has additive property Y.

Anahtar Kavram

Fallacy of Composition (Part-to-Whole Flaw)
Soru 1634Soru →

A financial institution recently implemented a restrictive automated screening protocol in its high-frequency algorithmic trading division, aiming to limit capital risk. Following this implementation, the total volume of trades executed daily by the division decreased by 15 percent. Additionally, financial audits confirm that the average profit generated per successful trade has remained entirely unchanged compared to the period preceding the new protocol. Nevertheless, the division’s total daily profit derived from high-frequency trading has increased by 20 percent since the protocol took effect.

Evaluate whether the following statement is true or false:

The assertion that 'the average profit generated per successful trade has remained entirely unchanged' and the assertion that 'the division’s total daily profit derived from high-frequency trading has increased by 20 percent' together constitute a genuine logical discrepancy.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false because the two identified assertions do not contradict one another. A flat average profit per successful trade combined with a 20 percent increase in total profit simply implies that more successful trades were made. The actual discrepancy requires the inclusion of the third fact—that the total volume of all trades executed decreased—which makes the increase in successful trades surprising.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the two specific assertions presented in the statement.
Assertion 1: Average profit per successful trade is unchanged. Assertion 2: Total daily profit increased by 20 percent.
The question specifically asks if this pair of assertions constitutes a genuine discrepancy, requiring them to be evaluated independently of the other facts.
2
Determine if there is any inherent logical conflict between these two assertions.
There is no conflict. Total profit equals the average profit per successful trade multiplied by the number of successful trades. If the average remains flat, total profit can easily increase by simply executing a higher number of successful trades.
A genuine apparent discrepancy must consist of facts that are mutually counter-intuitive or logically contradictory.
3
Identify what is missing that creates the actual discrepancy in the stimulus.
The paradox only exists because a third fact (the total volume of all trades decreased by 15 percent) restricts the obvious explanation that trade volume increased.
Recognizing that the tension depends entirely on the omitted third fact proves that the two provided assertions do not constitute a discrepancy on their own.

Anahtar Kavram

Recognizing that a logical discrepancy requires mutually counter-intuitive facts, and carefully distinguishing between averages and absolute totals.
Soru 1635Soru →

Sociologist: Only societies that possess a formalized system of property rights are capable of developing a complex market economy. Nomadic cultures inherently lack a formalized system of property rights, as their traditional lifestyle prevents them from claiming permanent ownership of specific land tracts. Therefore, it is impossible for nomadic cultures to cultivate highly specialized artisan classes.

The sociologist's argument relies on assuming which one of the following?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The cultivation of highly specialized artisan classes requires a complex market economy.

Cevap

The cultivation of highly specialized artisan classes requires a complex market economy.
The argument's premises establish a chain: nomadic cultures lack property rights, and without property rights, there can be no complex market economy. The conclusion then states that nomadic cultures cannot have highly specialized artisan classes. For this conclusion to logically follow, there must be a rule connecting the lack of a market economy to the lack of artisans. The correct answer provides this exact bridge by establishing that a complex market economy is a necessary prerequisite for cultivating highly specialized artisan classes. Applying the Negation Test confirms this: if artisan classes do NOT require a complex market economy, the fact that nomads lack such an economy is irrelevant, and the conclusion collapses.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core premises and the logical chain they create.
The premises establish that nomadic cultures lack formalized property rights, and without property rights, a society cannot develop a complex market economy.
Understanding the established facts is required before finding the gap in the reasoning.
2
Identify the main conclusion.
The conclusion claims that nomadic cultures cannot cultivate highly specialized artisan classes.
The conclusion introduces the target concept that must be proven by the premises.
3
Spot the 'rogue' element (the conceptual gap) between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises prove nomads lack a 'complex market economy', but the conclusion suddenly makes a claim about lacking 'highly specialized artisan classes'.
A valid logical deduction requires all terms in the conclusion to be firmly supported by the premises.
4
Formulate the necessary bridging assumption (the Supporter).
We must connect the absence of a market economy to the absence of artisans. Thus, we must assume that having artisans requires having a market economy.
Connecting the rogue conclusion element to the established premise chain logically completes the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions
Soru 1636Soru →

Macroeconomist: A country's overall economic resilience is determined by the financial behavior of its institutions. During the recent fiscal quarter, every single commercial bank operating within the nation implemented highly conservative lending practices, successfully minimizing their individual institutional risk. Because every individual bank in the system has achieved this secure posture, the national banking system as a whole is now completely insulated from systemic financial crises.

The reasoning in the macroeconomist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument does which of the following?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: infers that a property possessed by each individual entity within a system must necessarily be a property of the system as a whole

Cevap

The correct answer identifies that the argument infers that a property possessed by each individual entity within a system must necessarily be a property of the system as a whole.
The correct answer accurately describes the Fallacy of Composition committed in the stimulus. The argument takes a characteristic of the individual parts—that each bank has minimized its own risk—and inappropriately concludes that the entire banking system shares this exact same characteristic (immunity to crisis). It ignores the possibility that the collective actions of individual entities can create systemic issues that don't exist at the individual level.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the national banking system as a whole is now completely insulated from systemic financial crises.
This sets the target for what the premises must prove. The conclusion is a sweeping claim about the entire 'national banking system as a whole'.
2
Identify the premises provided to support the conclusion.
The core premise is that 'every single commercial bank' has minimized its 'individual institutional risk'.
Understanding the evidence highlights the specific transition the author is making from evidence to conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
The author assumes that what is true of the parts (individual banks being secure) must automatically be true of the whole (the entire banking system).
This is a classic structural gap. Complex systems often possess dynamics that differ from their isolated components (e.g., if all banks conservatively stop lending at once, it could trigger the very systemic crisis they seek to avoid).
4
Match the identified logical gap to the abstract descriptions in the options.
The correct option perfectly describes the Fallacy of Composition, noting the leap from 'each individual entity' to 'the system as a whole'.
LSAT Flaw questions require abstractly identifying the exact nature of the reasoning error.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Composition and Division (Part to Whole)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1637Soru →

Policy Analyst: A thriving local economy fundamentally depends upon a robust public transportation network. If a municipality fails to maintain reliable bus and commuter rail services, local businesses will inevitably struggle to attract both consumers and a qualified workforce. Over the past decade, the municipality of Oakhaven has allocated unprecedented funding toward expanding and upgrading its public transit infrastructure, resulting in the most reliable and expansive network in the region. Consequently, Oakhaven is guaranteed to experience a prolonged era of significant economic growth and a thriving local economy.

The reasoning in the policy analyst's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument:

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: draws a definitive conclusion by treating the fulfillment of an indispensable precondition for a phenomenon as though it were sufficient to ensure that phenomenon

Cevap

The correct option is the one that identifies the confusion between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition.
The analyst's argument relies on flawed conditional logic. The opening sentence establishes that a robust public transportation network is a necessary condition for a thriving local economy (the economy 'depends upon' it). The argument then establishes that Oakhaven has successfully fulfilled this necessary condition. However, the conclusion asserts that Oakhaven is 'guaranteed' to experience a thriving economy. This is a logical fallacy: fulfilling a requirement (an indispensable precondition) does not mean the outcome is guaranteed (sufficient to ensure). The correct option accurately describes this error in abstract terms.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core premises and their logical relationships.
The first premise states that a thriving economy 'depends upon' a robust transportation network. This establishes that a robust network is a necessary condition for a thriving economy.
Understanding the conditional indicators (like 'depends upon' and 'fails to') is crucial for mapping the argument's logic.
2
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that because Oakhaven has achieved a robust transportation network, it is 'guaranteed' to experience a thriving local economy.
The conclusion is the main claim that the author is trying to prove and where the logical leap occurs.
3
Compare the premises to the conclusion to find the logical gap.
The author takes a condition that was established as necessary (the robust network) and treats it as if its presence is sufficient to guarantee the outcome (the thriving economy).
Having a necessary ingredient does not guarantee the final result if other necessary ingredients are missing.
4
Select the option that matches this abstract description of the flaw.
The correct option states that the argument treats the 'fulfillment of an indispensable precondition' (necessary condition) as 'sufficient to ensure that phenomenon'.
This abstract wording perfectly describes the Illegal Reversal committed by the analyst.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1638Soru →

Review the excerpts below from various public and academic discussions. Determine the primary reasoning error in each excerpt and pair it with the corresponding abstract description of that logical flaw.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Historian: During the 19th century, every time the national debt decreased, there was a subsequent increase in agricultural yields. Therefore, lowering the national debt must have somehow stimulated agricultural productivity.
Mayor: Critics claim our city is becoming more dangerous. However, over the last five years, the percentage of crimes involving property damage has steadily decreased. Thus, property crimes are becoming less common in our city.
Scientist: If a planet has an atmosphere containing oxygen, it can support carbon-based life. Recent spectral analysis shows that Kepler-452b can support carbon-based life. Thus, it must have an oxygen-rich atmosphere.
Politician: The new zoning law is clearly in the public interest. After all, the public is highly interested in this controversial law, as evidenced by the massive attendance at recent town hall meetings.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Historian matches the correlation/causation temporal flaw. The Mayor matches the percentage vs. number flaw. The Scientist matches the necessary vs. sufficient condition flaw. The Politician matches the equivocation flaw.
Each argument represents a distinct, classic logical fallacy. The Historian assumes causation strictly from chronological sequence. The Mayor conflates relative percentages with raw numerical totals. The Scientist commits an illegal reversal, confusing a condition that guarantees an outcome with a condition required for that outcome. Finally, the Politician relies entirely on equivocating the phrase 'public interest'.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Historian's argument for its logical leap.
Identifies a chronological sequence (debt goes down, then yields go up) being used to justify a strict causal claim.
To match it with the temporal/causal flaw description.
2
Analyze the Mayor's argument for its logical leap.
Identifies the shift from a decreasing relative percentage to a claim about a decreasing absolute number.
To match it with the proportion vs. absolute quantity flaw.
3
Analyze the Scientist's argument for its logical leap.
Maps the conditional logic (Oxygen -> Life) and spots the illegal reversal (Life -> Oxygen).
To match it with the necessary vs. sufficient flaw description.
4
Analyze the Politician's argument for its logical leap.
Identifies the shifting definition of 'public interest' between the premise and the conclusion.
To match it with the equivocation flaw description.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning
Soru 1639Soru →

The city of Oakhaven recently implemented a strict ban on all commercial wood-burning ovens in restaurants in order to reduce particulate matter pollution (PM2.5) in the downtown area. However, six months after the ban was fully enforced, the average daily PM2.5 levels in downtown Oakhaven have actually increased significantly compared to the same period last year.

Which of the following statements, if true, help to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: To compensate for the ban, most downtown restaurants switched to inexpensive coal-fired stoves, which emit substantially more PM2.5 per hour of cooking than wood-burning ovens do.; The wood-burning ovens previously provided the majority of ambient heating for downtown restaurants during winter, and restaurants have replaced them with inefficient diesel space heaters that produce massive amounts of PM2.5.

Cevap

The correct statements are the one describing restaurants switching to coal-fired stoves and the one describing the adoption of diesel space heaters for ambient heat.
The correct answers successfully reconcile both premises by explaining how the implementation of the ban directly caused a new, more severe source of PM2.5 pollution. By showing that the elimination of wood-burning ovens forced restaurants to adopt worse alternatives (coal-fired stoves for cooking or diesel heaters for warmth), these statements make both the enforcement of the ban and the subsequent rise in pollution logically compatible.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the two conflicting premises.
Premise A: A major source of PM2.5 (wood-burning ovens) was banned and eliminated. Premise B: Total PM2.5 levels increased significantly anyway.
Understanding the exact nature of the discrepancy is required to find a statement that bridges them.
2
Determine what a successful resolution must accomplish.
The correct answers must explain how removing the wood-burning ovens actively led to an increase in pollution, accounting for both the ban's enforcement and the unexpected outcome.
A valid resolution cannot ignore one of the premises; it must make both premises mutually compatible.
3
Evaluate the options for one-sided explanations or paradox-deepening traps.
Statements explaining why the ban was put in place or confirming that the ban worked on its specific target fail to explain the overall increase in pollution.
Eliminating one-sided traps is the core skill in this specific question type.
4
Select the statements that provide a causal bridge.
The statements about coal-fired stoves and diesel space heaters both demonstrate how the ban itself forced a behavioral change that resulted in higher PM2.5 emissions.
These statements successfully reconcile both sides of the apparent discrepancy.

Anahtar Kavram

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 1640Soru →

Below are four independent scenarios in which an individual arrives at a specific conclusion based on a set of factual premises. For each scenario, select the broad normative or operational principle that, if assumed to be valid, would logically guarantee the conclusion drawn.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

An editor decides to publish a leaked internal memo about a major banking scandal, concluding that the publication is justified because it will allow thousands of defrauded investors to recover their stolen funds, even though the source of the leak cannot be authenticated.
A zookeeper decides against treating an aging elephant's chronic joint pain with a newly developed steroid, reasoning that the treatment must be withheld because it carries a small risk of inducing a fatal heart condition.
A chess tournament director disqualifies a grandmaster who accidentally bumped his opponent's chair during a critical move, declaring that the disqualification is necessary to maintain the integrity of the game's rules.
A smartphone manufacturer permanently disables the device's short-range wireless capability via a mandatory update upon finding a minor flaw, concluding that this action is required because user data might theoretically be accessed by a third party.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match each specific narrative to its underlying sufficient conditional rule, leaving the principle requiring 'definite and immediate harm' unmatched.
Each correct principle acts as a formal sufficient condition (A -> B) that perfectly bridges the gap between the specific premises offered by the decision-maker and their ultimate conclusion. By asserting that one specific value categorically outweighs another, the principles logically force the conclusions drawn in the scenarios.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Editor scenario.
Premise: publishing helps investors but source is unverified. Conclusion: publishing is justified. Gap: why does helping investors outweigh the lack of verification?
Identifying the gap between the factual premise and the normative conclusion is required to find the justifying principle.
2
Analyze the Zookeeper scenario.
Premise: drug treats pain but carries fatal risk. Conclusion: drug must be withheld. Gap: why does a fatal risk automatically outweigh pain relief?
Finding the bridging assumption that definitively prioritizes one outcome over another.
3
Analyze the Tournament scenario.
Premise: violation was accidental. Conclusion: disqualification is necessary. Gap: why does the lack of malicious intent not excuse the violation?
To justify the strict punishment, the principle must explicitly render intent irrelevant.
4
Analyze the Manufacturer scenario.
Premise: flaw is minor/theoretical, but affects data. Conclusion: feature must be permanently disabled. Gap: why does a theoretical risk justify permanently breaking a feature?
The principle must unconditionally prioritize data protection over product functionality.
5
Evaluate the unmatched principle.
The unmatched principle uses the phrase 'only if', establishing a necessary condition rather than a sufficient one.
A necessary condition cannot logically guarantee or justify a conclusion on its own, making it structurally unfit for a 'Justify' prompt.

Anahtar Kavram

Principle - Justify
ÖncekiSayfa 82 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin