Argument Evaluation

289 soru

Soru 1Soru →

Legal Scholar: The proposed legislation mandating transparency for pre-trial risk assessment algorithms is intended to eliminate racial bias in bail decisions. Under this mandate, developers must publicly disclose the precise mathematical weights their algorithms assign to various risk factors. However, the datasets used to train these algorithms are heavily skewed by historically biased arrest records. Since merely publishing these weights will not alter how the underlying algorithms mathematically process this historically biased training data, the proposed legislation will ultimately fail to eliminate racial bias in bail decisions.

Which of the following are assumptions on which the legal scholar’s argument depends? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The requirement to disclose algorithmic weights will not compel developers to retrain their systems using unbiased data prior to publication.; Magistrates will not utilize the disclosed mathematical weights to systematically identify and counteract the bias in the algorithms' recommendations when making bail decisions.

Cevap

The correct assumptions are that the disclosure requirement will not compel developers to retrain their algorithms with unbiased data, and that magistrates will not use the disclosed weights to manually counteract the bias in their final decisions.
The argument concludes that the legislation will fail to eliminate bias in 'bail decisions' strictly because publishing weights does not alter how algorithms process biased data. For this conclusion to hold, the author MUST assume two things: first, that the threat of publication won't cause developers to fix the data beforehand (which would eliminate the bias), and second, that the end-users of the algorithm (the magistrates) won't use the newly transparent weights to manually correct the bias in their actual decisions. If either of these events occurred, the legislation could succeed, thereby destroying the author's conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the core argument structure.
Conclusion: The legislation will fail to eliminate racial bias in bail decisions. Premises: Transparency only forces the publication of weights; training data is biased; publishing weights doesn't change how algorithms process this data.
Deconstructing the stimulus separates facts from the author's inferential leaps.
2
Identify logical gaps between the premises and the conclusion.
The author assumes that because the legislation doesn't alter the algorithm's *internal math post-publication*, it cannot affect the *developer's behavior pre-publication* or the *human judge's final decision*.
Necessary assumptions almost always live in the unstated space between the exact mechanism described in the premises and the final outcome claimed in the conclusion.
3
Apply the Negation Test to candidate answers.
Negating the statement about developers retraining algorithms destroys the conclusion. Negating the statement about magistrates manually counteracting bias destroys the conclusion.
The Negation Test is the definitive proof of a necessary assumption. If negating an option invalidates the argument, that option is logically required.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions using the Negation Technique, particularly recognizing defender assumptions that rule out alternate pathways to success.
Soru 2Soru →

City official: Following the implementation of a new ordinance restricting construction and commercial noise after 10 PM in the downtown district, the number of reported property crimes in the district dropped by 20 percent. This reduction was likely caused by the quieter environment, which allows residents to more easily hear the sounds of forced entry or tampering, thereby deterring criminals who fear being reported.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the city official's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The reduction in property crimes downtown was almost exclusively due to a drop in crimes involving loud mechanisms, such as shattering windows or prying metal doors.

Cevap

The option stating that the reduction in property crimes was almost exclusively due to a drop in crimes involving loud mechanisms.
The city official concludes that the drop in crime was caused by criminals being deterred because the quieter environment allows residents to hear forced entry. The correct answer strengthens this specific causal claim by showing that the reduction in crime was limited to crimes that actually produce the type of noise residents would hear. If all types of property crime had dropped equally, it would suggest a general deterrent. By isolating the drop to loud crimes, the correct answer strongly validates the official's specific hearing-based mechanism.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the premise and the main conclusion.
Premise: Crime dropped 20 percent after a noise ordinance was enacted. Conclusion: The drop was caused by criminals being deterred because the quieter environment allows residents to hear forced entry.
Understanding the exact causal mechanism proposed by the author is necessary to evaluate and strengthen the argument.
2
Determine the task required by the question stem.
The task is to find the choice that most strengthens the city official's argument.
Identifying the question type guides the evaluation of the answer choices.
3
Formulate a strategy to strengthen the specific causal mechanism.
Look for an answer choice that either rules out alternative causes for the crime drop or provides data specifically validating the 'hearing-based' deterrence mechanism.
Strengthening a causal claim requires showing that the effect is specifically tied to the proposed cause.
4
Evaluate the answer choices against the strategy.
The correct option shows that the drop in crime was limited to crimes that make noise. This perfectly aligns with the official's proposed mechanism.
If silent crimes had also dropped, it would suggest a general deterrent like increased police presence. By isolating the drop to loud crimes, the correct answer strongly bolsters the official's reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening Causal Arguments by Validating the Proposed Mechanism
Soru 3Soru →

Public Health Official: The new occupational safety regulations implemented at the Apex Manufacturing plant have clearly been successful in making the facility a safer place to work. Despite the plant increasing its total manufacturing output by 30 percent this year, the annual number of reported workplace injuries has remained exactly the same as last year before the regulations took effect.

Statement: The public health official's argument depends on the assumption that the plant did not achieve its increase in output by heavily automating its processes and significantly reducing the size of its human workforce.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The proposed statement identifies a necessary 'defender' assumption. The argument relies on a flat absolute number (total injuries) to support a claim about a rate (workplace safety). For 'same total injuries' to mean 'safer', the underlying population of workers must not have significantly decreased. If the plant achieved its output by drastically cutting its human workforce through automation, then the same number of injuries occurred among far fewer workers, meaning the injury rate per worker skyrocketed. Because the argument completely collapses if we assume a severe workforce reduction occurred, the argument must implicitly assume that such a reduction did not occur.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the public health official's argument.
Conclusion: The new safety regulations made the facility a safer place to work. Premises: Manufacturing output increased by 30%, but the total number of reported injuries remained exactly the same.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to expose the logical gap between the evidence and the claim.
2
Analyze the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument uses an absolute number (total injuries) to make a claim about safety (a rate of risk per individual worker). For the conclusion to hold, the author must assume the total number of workers exposed to risk did not significantly decrease.
If the number of workers decreased while total injuries stayed the same, the risk per worker actually increased.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed assumption.
Negated statement: The plant DID achieve its increase in output by heavily automating its processes and significantly reducing the size of its human workforce.
The Negation Test is the definitive LSAT method for proving whether an assumption is logically necessary.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the argument.
If the plant significantly reduced its workforce, the constant number of total injuries means the injury rate per remaining worker increased drastically. This destroys the conclusion that the facility is a safer place to work.
Because negating the statement invalidates the argument's conclusion, the statement must be a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Defender Assumptions and the Numbers vs. Rates Flaw
Soru 4Soru →

Legal Scholar: A statute cannot be considered legitimately authoritative unless it reflects the deeply held moral convictions of the populace it governs. Reflecting such convictions necessitates that the legislative body drafting the statute be completely insulated from the financial influence of special interest groups. The recently enacted Corporate Accountability Act was drafted by a committee heavily financed by the very industries it seeks to regulate. Therefore, the Act will inevitably face widespread civil disobedience.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the legal scholar's conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: No statute can avoid facing widespread civil disobedience unless it is legitimately authoritative.

Cevap

The correct answer is the statement indicating that no statute can avoid facing widespread civil disobedience unless it is legitimately authoritative.
The argument's premises establish a conditional chain: if a statute is legitimately authoritative, it must reflect moral convictions, which in turn requires insulation from financial influence. Because the Corporate Accountability Act was drafted by a financially influenced committee, it fails the necessary condition for insulation. By applying the contrapositive, the Act cannot be legitimately authoritative. The conclusion then abruptly claims the Act will face widespread civil disobedience. To logically guarantee this conclusion, we need an assumption bridging the gap: if a statute is not legitimately authoritative, it will face civil disobedience. The correct option provides exactly this bridge using 'unless' conditional phrasing: 'cannot avoid civil disobedience' unless 'legitimately authoritative' translates to 'If it is not legitimately authoritative, it will face civil disobedience'.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional statements in the premises.
Legitimately Authoritative (LA) → Reflects Moral Convictions (RMC) → Insulated from Financial Influence (IFI).
To understand the chain of necessary conditions established by the legal scholar.
2
Apply the factual premise to the conditional chain.
The Corporate Accountability Act (CAA) was drafted by a heavily financed committee, meaning it is not insulated (~IFI). By contrapositive (~IFI → ~RMC → ~LA), the CAA is not legitimately authoritative (~LA).
To determine what can be proven about the Corporate Accountability Act using only the provided evidence.
3
Identify the logical gap between the inferred evidence and the main conclusion.
We have proven the CAA is not legitimately authoritative (~LA). The conclusion claims the CAA will face widespread civil disobedience (WCD). The gap is: ~LA → WCD.
A sufficient assumption must completely bridge the gap between what is proven and what is concluded.
4
Evaluate the options to find the one that establishes the necessary conditional bridge (~LA → WCD).
The phrase 'No statute can avoid WCD unless LA' translates logically to 'If ~LA, then WCD'. This matches the gap perfectly.
To ensure the selected option provides 100% deductive certainty for the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption in Conditional Logic Chains
Soru 5Soru →

A recent study of municipal programs found that cities instituting "pay-as-you-throw" waste disposal systems—where residents are charged a fee based on the weight of their non-recyclable trash—saw a 40 percent increase in the total tonnage of materials collected in residential recycling bins during the first year. The study's authors conclude from this that the financial penalty successfully motivated residents to properly sort and recycle a much larger proportion of their eligible household waste.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: In the year following the system's implementation, recycling facilities in these cities reported a drastic increase in heavy, non-recyclable garbage being improperly disposed of in residential recycling bins.

Cevap

The correct answer is the one stating that facilities reported a drastic increase in heavy, non-recyclable garbage being improperly disposed of in residential recycling bins.
The correct answer successfully weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the 40 percent increase in tonnage. If residents are putting heavy, non-recyclable trash into their recycling bins to avoid paying the new weight-based fees for normal trash, then the increased weight in the recycling bins does not mean they are 'properly sorting and recycling' more eligible waste. This completely severs the logical link between the statistical premise and the behavioral conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premise and conclusion.
Premise: Tonnage of materials in recycling bins increased by 40% after implementing a fee for non-recyclable trash. Conclusion: The fee motivated residents to properly sort and recycle more eligible waste.
Isolating the gap between the evidence provided and the author's interpretation is the first step in any Weaken question.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the author's reasoning.
The author assumes that the increased weight in the recycling bins is composed strictly of properly sorted, eligible recyclable waste.
In Weaken questions based on statistics or data, the conclusion often misinterprets what the data actually represents or ignores alternative causes.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find a statement that exploits this specific logical gap.
The option regarding heavy, non-recyclable garbage being improperly placed in recycling bins directly attacks the assumption by providing an alternative explanation for the increased tonnage.
If the increased weight is actually due to residents cheating the system to avoid fees, then they are not properly sorting their waste, which destroys the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Alternative Explanations for Correlated Data
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 6Soru →

Sociolinguist: In the isolated community of Vespera, young adults use traditional idioms far less frequently than older adults do. Based on this observation, some researchers conclude that traditional idioms in Vespera are inevitably dying out. This conclusion is unwarranted. Young adults in Vespera are systematically excluded from the Council of Elders, a prestigious governing body where the use of traditional idioms is both expected and heavily utilized during all proceedings.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some of Vespera's current young adults will eventually use traditional idioms upon becoming members of the Council of Elders.

Cevap

The correct statement is that at least some of Vespera's current young adults will eventually use traditional idioms upon becoming members of the Council of Elders.
The sociolinguist argues that traditional idioms are not dying out, relying on the fact that the Council of Elders heavily utilizes these idioms and currently excludes young adults. For this premise to guarantee the survival of the idioms after the older generation passes, it must be true that the younger generation will adopt the idioms when they eventually age into the Council. Applying the Negation Test confirms this: if we assume that none of the young adults will ever use the idioms even upon joining the Council, the sociolinguist's evidence becomes irrelevant and the argument collapses.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the sociolinguist's argument.
The conclusion is that the researchers' claim is unwarranted; therefore, traditional idioms in Vespera are not inevitably dying out.
Isolating the conclusion is the first prerequisite for finding the unstated assumption that supports it.
2
Identify the premise used to support this conclusion.
The supporting premise is that young adults are systematically excluded from the Council of Elders, a prestigious body where traditional idioms are mandatory.
The assumption will be the unstated link bridging this supporting evidence to the main conclusion.
3
Locate the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument jumps from the premise 'young adults are currently excluded from a council that uses idioms' to the conclusion 'idioms are not dying out.' This requires assuming that these young adults will eventually enter the council and adopt the idioms.
Necessary assumptions always address the missing logical link in the argument's structure.
4
Evaluate the choices using the Negation Test.
Negating the correct statement yields: 'None of the current young adults will ever use traditional idioms upon joining the Council.' This destroys the argument, proving it is the necessary assumption.
The Negation Test is the definitive way to prove whether an assumption is logically necessary for the conclusion to stand.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Test
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 7Soru →

Retail Executive: Our new digital advertising strategy, implemented at the beginning of last year, has been a resounding success in boosting our online sales. In the year before the strategy was implemented, online sales accounted for just 15 percent of our total revenue. Last year, however, online sales made up a full 35 percent of our total revenue. It is clear that the new strategy brought in significantly more online revenue than we generated previously.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the retail executive's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The argument assumes that a rise in the percentage of a whole guarantees a rise in the absolute amount of that part.

Cevap

The argument assumes that a rise in the percentage of a whole guarantees a rise in the absolute amount of that part.
The executive's argument concludes that the absolute amount of online revenue increased, basing this claim entirely on the premise that the percentage of total revenue derived from online sales increased. However, a percentage is a relative figure. If the company's total revenue dropped significantly from the previous year to last year, a 35 percent share of last year's total could easily represent less actual money than a 15 percent share of the previous year's total. The correct choice identifies this flawed leap from proportion to absolute quantity.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the executive's argument.
The conclusion is that the new strategy 'brought in significantly more online revenue than we generated previously' (a claim about an absolute amount of money).
Understanding the exact nature of the conclusion is the first step in evaluating whether the premises adequately support it.
2
Analyze the premises provided as evidence for the conclusion.
The premises state that the proportion of total revenue coming from online sales increased from 15 percent to 35 percent.
Identifying the premises allows us to pinpoint the gap between the evidence provided and the conclusion drawn.
3
Evaluate the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion to find the flaw.
The premises only provide relative data (percentages), while the conclusion makes a definitive claim about an absolute number. If the company's total overall revenue plummeted last year, 35 percent of that new, smaller total could be less absolute money than 15 percent of the previous year's much larger total.
Recognizing this mathematical gap reveals the argument's central vulnerability.

Anahtar Kavram

Percent vs. Number Flaw
Soru 8Soru →

Analyze the following four arguments. Pair each argument with the abstract description that most accurately identifies its reasoning error.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Nutritionist: A comprehensive survey of office workers shows that those who frequently consume artisan coffee have significantly higher productivity levels than those who do not. Clearly, the specific blend of nutrients in artisan coffee directly boosts cognitive output and workplace efficiency.
Philosopher: We must accept that human actions are dictated by the laws of nature. After all, everything in the universe is subject to the law of gravity, and it is a law that we cannot break. Therefore, people who break the law should not be held morally responsible for their actions.
Safety Inspector: To pass the annual safety certification, a manufacturing plant must have functional emergency exits and up-to-date fire extinguishers. The Riverdale factory recently installed brand new fire extinguishers and ensured all emergency exits are fully functional. Consequently, the Riverdale factory will definitely pass its annual safety certification.
Traffic Commissioner: Our new highway interchange has been criticized as being exceptionally dangerous. However, last year only 4 percent of all traffic accidents in the county occurred at this new interchange, while a staggering 18 percent of all accidents occurred at the downtown roundabout. Therefore, it is definitively safer to drive through the new interchange than the downtown roundabout.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Nutritionist argument commits a Correlation vs. Causation flaw; the Philosopher argument commits an Equivocation flaw; the Safety Inspector argument commits a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw; and the Traffic Commissioner argument commits a Percentages vs. Numbers flaw.
Each argument contains a specific, classic logical fallacy that perfectly matches one of the abstract descriptions provided. Analyzing the gap between the premises and the conclusion in each stimulus reveals the exact nature of the flaw.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Nutritionist's argument.
Identified that it jumps from a survey finding (an association) to a claim about 'directly boosts' (causation).
To pinpoint the logical leap between the premises and the conclusion.
2
Analyze the Philosopher's argument.
Identified a shift in the usage of the word 'law' from scientific principles (gravity) to societal rules.
To recognize the equivocation flaw occurring between the evidence and the final claim.
3
Analyze the Safety Inspector's argument.
Identified that having exits and extinguishers is a 'must' (necessary) but the conclusion treats it as 'definitely pass' (sufficient).
To detect the confusion between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions.
4
Analyze the Traffic Commissioner's argument.
Identified the assumption that a lower percentage of total accidents means the location is safer, without considering the traffic volume.
To spot the flawed application of percentage data to draw conclusions about absolute risk.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Classic Logical Flaws
Soru 9Soru →

Consider the four policy-related arguments presented below. Which universal principle must be assumed to definitively justify the conclusion of each respective argument?

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The proposed municipal water project would eradicate the frequent shortages experienced in the eastern district. However, implementing the project requires seizing private farmland through eminent domain. Thus, the city must not proceed with the water project.
Governor Lin's tax reform bill will demonstrably increase the state's total economic output over the next decade. Yet, because the bill disproportionately increases the tax burden on the lowest-income residents, the legislature should vote against it.
The pharmaceutical company's new medication effectively cures a rare, debilitating disease. Unfortunately, producing the medication generates highly toxic chemical byproducts that cannot be safely stored. Therefore, regulatory agencies should prohibit the manufacturing of this medication.
The university's planned athletic complex would generate millions in revenue and significantly boost school spirit. However, the construction would require reallocating funds currently designated for academic scholarships. Consequently, the university administrators must cancel the athletic complex.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The municipal water project is justified by the principle against property confiscation; the tax reform bill is justified by the principle against disadvantaging the poorest citizens; the medication manufacturing is justified by the principle against generating uncontainable hazardous waste; and the athletic complex is justified by the principle against diverting financial aid.
Each correctly paired principle functions as a conditional mechanism. It takes the specific negative outcome cited in the argument's premise as its sufficient condition, and it yields the argument's rejection of the proposal as its necessary condition, explicitly overriding any competing benefits.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct each argument to identify its premises, its concession, and its ultimate conclusion.
Each scenario features a proposed action with a conceded benefit (e.g., curing a disease, generating revenue) and a specific negative premise (e.g., toxic waste, diverting scholarships), concluding definitively that the action must be stopped.
Isolating the logical gap between the specific negative premise and the prohibitive conclusion is required to identify the correct sufficient assumption.
2
Formulate the missing conditional rule that forces the conclusion to be true.
The necessary bridge for each argument takes the form: 'If [specific negative premise], then [action must be stopped], regardless of [conceded benefit].'
A 'justify' principle must act as a sufficient condition that completely bridges the gap from the premises to the conclusion without leaving room for exceptions.
3
Map the formulated conditional rules to the provided universal principles.
The negative conditions (confiscating property, disadvantaging the poorest, uncontainable waste, diverting financial aid) directly trigger the prohibitive conclusions mandated in the respective principles.
Matching requires strict alignment between the normative triggers in the principle and the factual conditions presented in the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

In 'Principle - Justify' questions, the correct principle acts as a strict conditional rule (If P, then Q). The premises of the argument must satisfy the sufficient condition (P), thereby guaranteeing the argument's conclusion as the necessary condition (Q).
Soru 10Soru →

Management Consultant: Any organization that achieves long-term market dominance must have continuously invested in research and development. VestraTech Industries has recently committed a substantial portion of its annual budget to continuous research and development. We can conclude, therefore, that VestraTech Industries is guaranteed to achieve long-term market dominance.

Which of the following best describes the flaw in the management consultant's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: treats a condition that is required for bringing about a certain outcome as though it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome

Cevap

The argument treats a condition that is required for bringing about a certain outcome as though it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
The correct answer accurately identifies the structural flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The first premise establishes that continuous R&D is a requirement (a necessary condition) for long-term market dominance. The argument then incorrectly assumes that because VestraTech satisfied this requirement, it is absolutely guaranteed to achieve market dominance, treating the requirement as if it were a sufficient guarantee.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first premise to identify the conditional relationship.
Market Dominance -> Continuous R&D. (R&D is a necessary condition for dominance).
Understanding the precise logical constraints set by the word 'must' is crucial for evaluating the argument.
2
Analyze the second premise and how it applies to VestraTech.
VestraTech has continuous R&D. (The necessary condition has been met).
This establishes the factual basis from which the author attempts to draw an inference.
3
Examine the conclusion drawn from these premises.
VestraTech -> Market Dominance. (Therefore, VestraTech will achieve dominance).
To find the flaw, we must see how the author moved from the premises to the final claim.
4
Compare the logical structure to known logical fallacies.
The author committed an illegal reversal, confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one.
Fulfilling a requirement (R&D) does not automatically guarantee success (Dominance), as there may be other unstated requirements.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 11Soru →

Financial Regulator: The creators of the 'Equi-Loan' software claim their algorithm produces unbiased loan decisions. To prove this, they demonstrated that the system is trained exclusively on objective data: the strictly factual, verifiable historical records of bank loan approvals and denials over the past fifty years. Since the software's outputs are mathematically derived solely from this objective data, the regulator concludes that the algorithm's loan decisions are indeed objective and therefore unbiased.

The regulator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: relies on a shift in the meaning of the word 'objective' from the premises to the conclusion

Cevap

The correct answer identifies that the argument relies on a shift in the meaning of the word 'objective' from the premises to the conclusion.
The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. In the premise, 'objective data' is explicitly defined as 'strictly factual, verifiable historical records'—meaning the records accurately document what happened. In the conclusion, the regulator claims the decisions are 'objective and therefore unbiased'—meaning free from prejudice. Factually recording historical decisions does not mean those historical decisions were fair. An algorithm trained on factually accurate records of heavily biased human decisions will simply replicate that bias. Thus, the data can be 'objective' (factual) without producing 'objective' (unbiased) results.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's premises.
The core premise is that the software is trained on 'objective data', which the author explicitly defines as 'strictly factual, verifiable historical records'.
Understanding the precise definitions established in the premises is crucial for spotting logical gaps.
2
Analyze the argument's conclusion.
The conclusion claims that because the data is objective, the software's decisions are 'objective and therefore unbiased'.
Isolating the conclusion allows for direct comparison with the supporting premises.
3
Identify the logical disconnect between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that factually accurate records of past decisions (premise) guarantee that those decisions were fair or unbiased (conclusion). However, accurately recording a biased historical decision just results in an accurate record of bias.
This reveals the underlying vulnerability of the reasoning.
4
Classify the specific flaw committed.
The author uses the term 'objective' to mean 'verifiable/factual' when discussing the data, but uses the same word to mean 'unbiased' when describing the final decisions. This is the fallacy of equivocation.
Matching the logical disconnect to standard LSAT flaw categories allows for selecting the correct abstract description in the choices.

Anahtar Kavram

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)
Soru 12Soru →

City Councilor: Our new municipal tax on sugary beverages, implemented one year ago, has been a resounding success in improving public health. We know this because retail data shows that the total volume of sugary beverages sold within the city limits has decreased by 20% since the tax was introduced.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Since the tax was implemented, sales of sugary beverages at stores immediately outside the city limits have surged by an amount roughly equal to the decrease seen within the city.

Cevap

The statement regarding the surge in sales of sugary beverages at stores immediately outside the city limits most seriously weakens the argument.
The argument relies on the assumption that lower beverage sales within the city mean city residents are consuming less sugar. The correct answer undermines this assumption by providing a highly plausible alternative explanation: the tax merely caused residents to drive just outside the city limits to buy their beverages. If total consumption remains roughly the same, the conclusion that the tax improved public health falls apart.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'Our new municipal tax on sugary beverages... has been a resounding success in improving public health.'
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to know what needs to be undermined.
2
Identify the premise supporting the conclusion.
The premise is: 'The total volume of sugary beverages sold within the city limits has decreased by 20% since the tax was introduced.'
This shows the evidence the author uses to justify their claim.
3
Identify the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The author assumes that a decrease in sales *within the city limits* directly equates to a decrease in overall consumption by city residents, which would lead to improved health.
Finding the assumption reveals the argument's vulnerability.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that exploits this gap.
The option showing a matching surge in sales just outside the city limits proves that consumption did not drop; the location of purchase simply shifted. This severs the link between the premise and the conclusion.
A valid 'weaken' answer must show that the conclusion is unlikely to be true even if the premises are true.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Alternate Explanations / Assessing the Scope of Evidence
Soru 13Soru →

Retail Analyst: To combat declining profits, several bookstore chains introduced gourmet cafes and seating areas. Consequently, the average time customers spend in these stores has increased significantly. However, during the same period, overall book sales revenue at these chains has continued to decrease. Therefore, the introduction of cafes and seating has failed to help stimulate book sales.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The decline in book sales revenue would not have been even greater if the bookstore chains had not introduced the cafes and seating areas.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the decline in book sales revenue would not have been even greater if the bookstore chains had not introduced the cafes and seating areas.
This option acts as a 'defender' assumption. For the analyst to conclude that the strategy completely failed to help, they must assume it didn't prevent an even worse outcome. If we negate this statement—assuming that sales WOULD have decreased even more had the cafes not been built—then the cafes actually did help maintain sales relative to the baseline. Because negating this option destroys the analyst's conclusion, it is a logically necessary assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is the final sentence: the introduction of cafes and seating has failed to help stimulate book sales.
Pinpointing the exact conclusion is required to determine what unstated premise is necessary to support it.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premises are that customer visit duration has increased, but overall book sales revenue has continued to decrease during the exact same period.
Separating the provided evidence from the conclusion reveals the logical gap.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to test potential necessary assumptions.
Negating the correct option results in: 'The decline WOULD have been even greater if the chains had not introduced the cafes.' If this is true, the cafes DID help mitigate the decline, which destroys the author's conclusion.
The Negation Technique is the most reliable method for proving whether an assumption is logically required for the argument to hold.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defender Strategy)
Soru 14Soru →

A comprehensive analysis of e-commerce behavior revealed that individuals utilizing virtual reality (VR) retail platforms make 40 percent more impulse purchases on average than those shopping exclusively via traditional mobile interfaces. From this observation, consumer psychologists deduce that the highly immersive nature of VR inherently degrades a shopper's self-regulation. Accordingly, they forecast that an industry-wide shift toward VR commerce will trigger a drastic escalation in impulsive buying across the general public.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the psychologists' argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Shoppers who exhibit strong baseline tendencies toward impulsive spending are no more likely to adopt VR retail platforms than are highly disciplined shoppers.

Cevap

The option stating that shoppers with strong tendencies toward impulsive spending are no more likely to adopt VR platforms.
The argument concludes that VR technology itself causes an increase in impulsive buying by degrading self-regulation. This causal claim is based entirely on a correlation: VR users make more impulse purchases. The most significant vulnerability in this reasoning is self-selection bias—what if inherently impulsive people are simply more attracted to VR apps in the first place? The correct answer explicitly eliminates this alternative cause by stating that impulsive consumers are no more likely to adopt VR than highly disciplined consumers. By ruling out this major alternative explanation, the original claim that the VR environment is responsible for the impulsivity is significantly strengthened.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise: VR users have a 40 percent higher average rate of impulse purchases. Conclusion: VR's immersive nature inherently degrades self-regulation, causing a surge in impulse buying.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to see that a causal claim is being drawn from correlative survey data.
2
Locate the primary logical gap or vulnerability.
The psychologists assume the VR environment is the cause, ignoring the possibility of self-selection bias (i.e., that naturally impulsive people simply prefer VR shopping).
Identifying the unstated assumption provides the blueprint for strengthening the argument.
3
Evaluate the choices to find the one that defends the causal claim.
The correct choice explicitly eliminates the self-selection alternative by stating impulsive buyers are no more likely to adopt VR than disciplined buyers.
Ruling out an alternative explanation is a definitive method for strengthening a correlational-causal argument on the LSAT.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening causal arguments by ruling out alternative explanations (such as self-selection bias or reverse causation).
Soru 15Soru →

Media Analyst: A popular streaming platform recently introduced a "skip credits" button. Data shows that subscribers who frequently click this button watch significantly fewer episodes per viewing session on average than subscribers who let the credits play out. Clearly, the physical act of interacting with the interface breaks the viewer’s narrative immersion, thereby prompting them to end their viewing session earlier.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the media analyst's conclusion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Subscribers who enable an "auto-skip" setting, which automatically bypasses credits without requiring physical interaction, watch just as many episodes per session as those who watch the full credits.

Cevap

Subscribers who enable an "auto-skip" setting, which automatically bypasses credits without requiring physical interaction, watch just as many episodes per session as those who watch the full credits.
The analyst concludes that the physical act of clicking causes the viewer to end their session earlier. The correct answer strengthens this causal claim by showing what happens when the credits are bypassed without the physical act of clicking. Because viewers using the "auto-skip" feature watch just as many episodes as those who watch the full credits, it isolates the physical interaction as the crucial variable, ruling out the possibility that simply missing the credits is what causes shorter sessions.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the physical act of interacting with the interface breaks narrative immersion and causes viewers to end their session earlier.
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to know what needs to be strengthened.
2
Identify the premises and the reasoning gap.
The premise is a correlation: frequent skip-button clickers watch fewer episodes per session. The gap is the assumption that the clicking causes the shorter sessions, rather than a third factor or reverse causation.
Strengthening a causal argument usually requires ruling out alternative causes or isolating the proposed cause.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that bridges the gap.
The correct option shows that when the effect of bypassing credits occurs WITHOUT the physical act of clicking (using an 'auto-skip' setting), viewing sessions are not shortened. This isolates the physical act as the true cause.
Demonstrating that the absence of the cause (physical click) leads to the absence of the effect (shorter session) powerfully strengthens a causal claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Causal Reasoning and Argument Strengthening
Soru 16Soru →

Maritime Archaeologist: The shipwreck of the Aurelia, a 19th-century merchant vessel, was recently located just outside the harbor of Port Caelum. The wreck contains a massive cargo of untreated timber. Historical logs confirm that Port Caelum was a major center for furniture manufacturing, which required vast amounts of untreated timber, during that era. Consequently, the Aurelia must have been arriving at Port Caelum to supply the local furniture industry when it foundered.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The Aurelia was not outward bound from Port Caelum when it sank.

Cevap

The correct answer is the statement that the Aurelia was not outward bound from Port Caelum when it sank.
The argument concludes that the ship was arriving at Port Caelum to deliver timber, based on the ship's location and cargo. For this to be true, we must rule out the alternative possibility that the ship had just departed from Port Caelum and was heading somewhere else with the timber. The correct answer defends the argument by explicitly ruling out this exact alternative.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the Aurelia must have been arriving at Port Caelum to supply the local furniture industry.
This is signaled by the word 'Consequently' and represents the archaeologist's main claim.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premises are: 1) The wreck was found just outside Port Caelum; 2) It contained a massive cargo of untreated timber; 3) Port Caelum was a major furniture manufacturing center requiring vast amounts of such timber.
These established facts are used as evidence to deduce the ship's purpose and destination.
3
Identify the gap in the reasoning.
The archaeologist assumes that proximity to the harbor and possessing a relevant cargo means the ship was arriving. The gap is the possibility that the ship was leaving the harbor after loading timber, or just passing by.
Correlation (being near the port with timber) does not guarantee the causal direction (arriving to deliver it).
4
Apply the Negation Test to the correct answer candidate.
Negating 'The Aurelia was not outward bound' yields 'The Aurelia WAS outward bound'. If the ship was leaving the port, it could not have been arriving to supply the local industry.
Because the negated version destroys the conclusion, the original statement is logically required for the argument to hold.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defender Pattern)
Soru 17Soru →

Below are four distinct logical arguments (Left) and four highly abstract premises (Right). Match each argument to the single premise that provides the most robust logical strengthening by identifying and patching a critical gap in the argument's reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Historian: A newly unearthed 12th12^{\text{th}}-century manuscript features text written in an iron-gall ink whose unique spectroscopic signature perfectly matches the ink synthesized exclusively at the St. Jude monastery. Consequently, we can definitively conclude that this manuscript was authored by monks residing at St. Jude.
Medical Researcher: An observational study spanning ten years demonstrates that older adults who routinely engage in solving cryptic crosswords exhibit a measurably slower rate of age-related cognitive decline compared to those who abstain from such puzzles. This confirms that solving cryptic crosswords actively preserves cognitive function.
Economist: Following the government's introduction of a targeted tax subsidy for small enterprises investing in renewable energy infrastructure, the aggregate national expenditure on renewable technologies by all businesses surged by 40%40\%. The subsidy clearly succeeded in motivating small enterprises to adopt green technology.
Ecologist: The native red squirrel population in the highland pine forest has plummeted since the invasive grey squirrel was introduced. Because grey squirrels forage more rapidly and consume the exact same seeds, the red squirrel's decline is undoubtedly attributable to starvation caused by this fierce dietary competition.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match the Historian to the premise regarding unexported materials, the Medical Researcher to the premise ruling out baseline physiological resistance, the Economist to the premise noting no growth in ineligible segments, and the Ecologist to the premise ruling out novel pathogens.
Each correct pairing provides an abstract premise that explicitly patches a specific logical gap in the corresponding argument. The Historian's gap regarding ink distribution is closed by ruling out exports. The Medical Researcher's reverse-causality gap is closed by confirming the habit isn't chosen due to pre-existing health. The Economist's whole-to-part gap is closed by showing that non-subsidized segments did not contribute to the aggregate growth. The Ecologist's alternative-cause gap is closed by eliminating disease as a factor.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Historian's argument for unstated assumptions.
The argument assumes that St. Jude's exclusive ink could not have been used by anyone outside the monastery.
Identifying the gap in evidence transmission is the first step to strengthening the historical claim.
2
Identify the strengthening premise for the Historian.
The premise stating that the unique materials were never exported or traded perfectly addresses the gap.
Ruling out the possibility of outside use ensures only St. Jude monks could have authored the manuscript.
3
Analyze the Medical Researcher's argument.
The argument assumes causation from correlation, ignoring the possibility of reverse causality.
In observational health studies, one must prove the activity caused the health benefit, not that healthier people simply chose the activity.
4
Identify the strengthening premise for the Medical Researcher.
The premise stating that individuals do not adopt the habit due to pre-existing physiological resistance closes the reverse-causality gap.
This confirms the causal direction runs from the puzzle to cognitive health, not vice versa.
5
Analyze the Economist's argument.
The argument assumes that a 40%40\% aggregate increase was driven exclusively by the small enterprises that received the subsidy.
A whole-to-part logical gap exists when aggregate data is used to prove a claim about a specific subset.
6
Identify the strengthening premise for the Economist.
The premise stating that ineligible market segments experienced no growth proves the aggregate growth must have come from the subsidized segment.
Eliminating the alternative source of the aggregate increase directly supports the conclusion.
7
Analyze the Ecologist's argument.
The argument assumes the decline of red squirrels is exclusively due to starvation from competition.
Causal claims based on a sequence of events must rule out alternative causal mechanisms.
8
Identify the strengthening premise for the Ecologist.
The premise ruling out novel transmissible pathogens eliminates disease as an alternative cause.
Ruling out an alternative cause (disease) significantly strengthens the proposed cause (starvation).

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening causal and statistical arguments by systematically ruling out alternative explanations, reverse causality, and confounding variables.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 18Soru →

Archaeologist: Excavations at the ancient settlement of Kourion revealed that immediately following a severe, decades-long drought, nearly every household installed large ceramic vats. These vats are of a specific design historically used for dyeing fabrics. Clearly, to survive the devastating loss of agricultural revenue caused by the drought, Kourion's residents transitioned to a large-scale export industry centered on dyed textiles.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The dyed textiles produced by Kourion's residents were not used exclusively for their own local consumption.

Cevap

The argument depends on the assumption that the dyed textiles produced by Kourion's residents were not used exclusively for their own local consumption.
The argument jumps from the premise that households installed dyeing vats to the conclusion that the town developed a large-scale export industry. For an export industry to exist, the goods produced must actually leave the local area. By applying the Negation Test, if the residents used the dyed textiles exclusively for their own local consumption, the conclusion that they formed an export industry completely falls apart. Therefore, this is a necessary assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that Kourion's residents transitioned to a large-scale export industry in dyed textiles to survive agricultural loss.
Isolating the conclusion is essential for determining what the premises must logically prove.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Households installed large ceramic vats of a specific design historically used for dyeing fabrics right after a severe drought.
Understanding the evidence reveals the gap between what is explicitly stated and what is concluded.
3
Identify the logical gap and formulate the necessary assumption.
The gap is between 'households installing dyeing vats' and the existence of 'an export industry'. The argument assumes the dyed goods were meant for external trade, not just local use.
A necessary assumption must bridge the logical gap or defend the argument against a fatal flaw.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the correct option to verify.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The dyed textiles were used exclusively for local consumption.' This directly contradicts the existence of an 'export industry', confirming the assumption is necessary.
The Negation Test is the definitive method on the LSAT to confirm if an assumption is strictly required.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Technique
Soru 19Soru →

A recent dietary survey found that individuals who regularly consume fermented foods, such as yogurt and kimchi, report significantly lower levels of daily stress than those who rarely eat such foods. Based on this correlation, nutrition researchers concluded that the specific probiotics prevalent in fermented foods actively reduce the body's physiological stress response.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the researchers' argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: In a subsequent controlled trial, individuals randomly assigned to consume fermented foods daily showed a substantial decrease in blood cortisol, a primary stress hormone.

Cevap

The statement detailing a controlled trial where randomly assigned consumption of fermented foods led to a decrease in blood cortisol.
The correct answer strengthens the conclusion by shifting from observational survey data to a controlled experimental trial. By randomly assigning the diet and showing a measurable physiological result (decreased blood cortisol), it establishes a clear timeline and eliminates alternative lifestyle factors, directly supporting the claim that probiotics actively cause a reduction in stress.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise: Survey shows a correlation between eating fermented foods and lower stress. Conclusion: Probiotics in fermented foods actively reduce the body's stress response.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to pinpoint the exact logical leap being made.
2
Identify the logical gap or vulnerability in the reasoning.
The researchers assume causation based entirely on correlation. They fail to account for alternative causes or reverse causation (e.g., less stressed people having better diets).
Finding the flaw reveals what type of evidence is needed to strengthen the claim.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find one that bridges the gap.
The correct answer provides a randomized controlled trial showing a direct physiological effect (decreased cortisol) following the introduction of fermented foods.
Controlled experiments eliminate confounding variables and reverse causation, providing the strongest possible support for a causal conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening Causal Arguments (Ruling Out Alternatives / Confirming Mechanism)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 20Soru →

Agricultural economist: The newly developed cultivar of soybean, "Drought-Shield", requires 30 percent less irrigation water per hectare than the conventional soybean varieties currently grown in the arid central valley. Conventional soybeans currently account for over 70 percent of the central valley's agricultural water use. Therefore, if central valley farmers entirely replace their conventional soybeans with Drought-Shield, the central valley's total agricultural water consumption will decline substantially.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Central valley farmers will not increase the total number of hectares devoted to soybean cultivation to such an extent that it negates the per-hectare reduction in water use.

Cevap

The argument assumes that farmers will not increase their total soybean acreage enough to negate the per-hectare water savings.
The argument shifts from a per-hectare reduction (a rate) to a total consumption reduction (an absolute amount). For a reduction in rate to guarantee a reduction in total amount, the underlying base (the total number of hectares cultivated) cannot increase enough to offset the efficiency gains. By applying the Negation Test, if farmers *did* increase their soybean acreage to such an extent that it negated the per-hectare reduction, total agricultural water consumption would not decline substantially, and the argument would fail. Therefore, this assumption is strictly necessary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument structure.
Premises: Drought-Shield uses 30% less water per hectare, and current soybeans account for over 70% of total agricultural water. Conclusion: If farmers switch entirely to Drought-Shield, total agricultural water use will decline substantially.
Deconstructing the argument structure is necessary to isolate the logical gap.
2
Analyze the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises provide a reduction in a rate (water per hectare) and infer a reduction in an absolute amount (total water consumption).
Identifying shifts between rates and absolute numbers reveals potential flaws in the reasoning.
3
Anticipate a necessary assumption that bridges this gap.
The argument must assume that the total number of hectares planted will not increase so dramatically that it wipes out the efficiency savings gained per hectare.
If total acreage increases significantly, total water use could stay the same or rise, destroying the conclusion.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the anticipated assumption.
Negating the correct option yields: 'Farmers WILL increase soybean acreage to such an extent that it negates the per-hectare savings.' This directly invalidates the conclusion.
The Negation Test definitively proves whether an assumption is strictly necessary for the argument to hold.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying a 'Defender' assumption that prevents a flaw related to rates versus absolute amounts.
Sayfa 1 / 15Sonraki
Argument Evaluation Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT | Examkin