Argument Evaluation

289 soru

Soru 261Soru →

Analyze the flawed reasoning in each argument below. Match each argument (1-4) to the abstract description that most accurately identifies its logical vulnerability.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A recent analysis found that metropolitan areas with a high density of public parks have significantly lower rates of cardiovascular disease. The health commissioner has therefore proposed building ten new parks, arguing that this initiative will directly reduce the incidence of heart disease among residents.
To be considered for the prestigious Archival Research Fellowship, a candidate must have published at least one peer-reviewed article. Since Julian recently had his first article accepted by the Journal of Antiquities, he is guaranteed to be awarded the fellowship this cycle.
The opposition claims our proposed urban zoning policy is not sound. But independent acoustical tests confirm that the operation of the new facilities permitted by the policy will generate sound at levels well below the threshold of human hearing. Thus, the opposition's concerns are baseless.
A decade ago, the university enrolled 5,000 international students. This year, it enrolled only 4,000 international students. Therefore, international students must now make up a smaller percentage of the university's overall student body than they did a decade ago.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 matches with the correlation/causation flaw. Argument 2 matches with confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one. Argument 3 matches with the equivocation flaw. Argument 4 matches with the numbers versus percentages flaw.
Each argument contains exactly one primary logical vulnerability. Argument 1 infers causation from correlation. Argument 2 illegally reverses a conditional statement. Argument 3 equivocates on the word 'sound'. Argument 4 confuses absolute quantities with proportional percentages. The abstract descriptions perfectly encapsulate these structural errors.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first argument to isolate the premises and conclusion.
Premise: Parks and lower heart disease are correlated. Conclusion: Building parks causes a reduction in heart disease.
Identifying the gap between correlation in the premises and causation in the conclusion reveals a causal flaw.
2
Analyze the second argument's conditional logic.
Premise: Fellowship requires (necessitates) a published article. Conclusion: Having a published article guarantees (is sufficient for) the fellowship.
This structural breakdown exposes the reversal of a necessary condition into a sufficient condition.
3
Analyze the third argument's language for shifting definitions.
The premise addresses 'sound' as noise, while the conclusion attempts to refute a claim about a policy being 'sound' (prudent).
Tracking how key vocabulary is used highlights the equivocation fallacy.
4
Analyze the fourth argument's mathematical reasoning.
The premise provides a drop in absolute numbers (5,000 to 4,000). The conclusion makes a claim about a percentage of a whole.
Comparing the unit of measurement in the premise (raw numbers) to the conclusion (fractions/percentages) reveals the statistical flaw.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 262Soru →

Museum Curator: Over the past decade, the percentage of bronze artifacts in our collection requiring extensive structural restoration has steadily decreased, while the percentage of marble artifacts requiring such restoration has significantly increased. Therefore, our preservation team is currently performing extensive structural restorations on a larger number of marble artifacts than bronze artifacts.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: draws a conclusion about comparative absolute quantities based solely on information about comparative proportions

Cevap

The argument draws a conclusion about comparative absolute quantities based solely on information about comparative proportions.
The correct answer accurately diagnoses the vulnerability in the curator's reasoning. The curator attempts to compare the absolute number of marble restorations to the absolute number of bronze restorations using only percentage changes. If the museum owns thousands of bronze artifacts and only a handful of marble artifacts, a shrinking percentage of bronze artifacts could still easily outnumber a growing percentage of marble artifacts.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises of the argument.
The percentage of bronze artifacts needing restoration is decreasing, and the percentage of marble artifacts needing restoration is increasing.
Understanding the evidence provided is the first step in analyzing the argument's structure.
2
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The museum is currently restoring a larger number (absolute quantity) of marble artifacts than bronze artifacts.
Pinpointing the conclusion reveals what the author is trying to prove based on the premises.
3
Evaluate the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises discuss percentages (rates), while the conclusion attempts to make a definitive claim about absolute numbers.
This exposes the logical gap. Percentages alone cannot determine absolute numbers without knowing the total baseline sizes of the respective groups.
4
Select the option that accurately describes this specific logical gap.
The option stating the argument draws a conclusion about absolute quantities based solely on comparative proportions perfectly captures the flaw.
This matches the classic 'percent vs. number' flaw archetype.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning - Percentages vs. Numbers
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 263Soru →

Match each flawed argument to the description that most accurately identifies the vulnerability in its reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Sociologist: Neighborhoods with a high concentration of community gardens consistently report significantly lower property crime rates than other neighborhoods. Thus, establishing community gardens directly reduces criminal activity in those areas.
Art Critic: Every true masterpiece profoundly challenges the artistic conventions of its era. This controversial new painting has undoubtedly challenged contemporary artistic conventions, so it must be considered a true masterpiece.
Traffic Analyst: The initiative to replace traditional traffic lights with roundabouts has worsened road safety. Last year, there were over 400 collisions at roundabouts across the city, compared to only 120 at traditional intersections.
Political Commentator: The councilwoman's proposal to increase funding for public transit should be disregarded. She is a known investor in several major construction firms that stand to benefit significantly from transit infrastructure contracts.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Sociologist's argument commits a correlation-to-causation fallacy. The Art Critic's argument commits a necessary versus sufficient condition fallacy. The Traffic Analyst's argument commits a numbers versus percentages fallacy. The Political Commentator's argument commits an ad hominem (source) fallacy.
Each flawed argument exhibits a classic LSAT logical fallacy. The Sociologist jumps from correlation to causation. The Art Critic illegally reverses a conditional statement. The Traffic Analyst misuses absolute numbers to make a claim about comparative rates. The Political Commentator attacks the source's motives rather than the argument itself.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the reasoning structure of the Sociologist's argument.
The argument moves from a statistical association ('consistently report significantly lower') to a causal claim ('directly reduces').
Identifying the premise-to-conclusion relationship reveals the flaw of assuming correlation implies causation.
2
Analyze the reasoning structure of the Art Critic's argument.
The premise sets up a requirement ('Every true masterpiece profoundly challenges...'), while the conclusion treats meeting that requirement as a guarantee of being a masterpiece.
Translating the argument into conditional logic exposes the illegal reversal (confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one).
3
Analyze the reasoning structure of the Traffic Analyst's argument.
The conclusion about relative safety ('worsened road safety') is supported only by raw collision counts (400 vs. 120).
Evaluating the evidence shows that absolute numbers cannot prove rates or safety without knowing the total number of intersections of each type.
4
Analyze the reasoning structure of the Political Commentator's argument.
The argument concludes that a policy proposal should be 'disregarded' strictly because the author stands to benefit financially.
Focusing on the nature of the evidence reveals an attack on the speaker's motives rather than a critique of the policy itself.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning
Soru 264Soru →

Agricultural scientist: Over the past year, many farmers in the Oakhaven region transitioned to using a newly developed pest-control spray on their apple orchards. A recent survey shows that orchards using the new spray suffered, on average, a 15 percent higher rate of crop damage from insects compared to orchards that continued using the traditional pesticide. Therefore, the new pest-control spray must be less effective at repelling insects than the traditional pesticide.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Farmers in Oakhaven generally switch to alternative pest-control methods only after their orchards suffer insect infestations that the traditional pesticide has failed to manage.

Cevap

The statement indicating that farmers generally switch to alternative pest-control methods only after their orchards suffer insect infestations that the traditional pesticide failed to manage.
The correct answer introduces a selection bias, which serves as an alternative explanation for the observed correlation. If farmers only use the new spray when their orchards are already suffering from severe infestations that the old pesticide could not handle, then the new spray is being tested exclusively on the most heavily infested orchards. This underlying condition explains the higher rate of crop damage and completely severs the assumed causal link that the new spray itself is less effective.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'Therefore, the new pest-control spray must be less effective at repelling insects than the traditional pesticide.'
Understanding the main point the author is trying to prove is the first step in evaluating any argument.
2
Identify the premise supporting the conclusion.
The evidence is that orchards using the new spray suffered a 15 percent higher rate of crop damage than those using the traditional pesticide.
This establishes the correlation used to justify the causal conclusion.
3
Locate the logical flaw or gap in the reasoning.
The scientist assumes that the higher damage rate was caused by the new spray's ineffectiveness, ignoring other possible causes like selection bias (i.e., perhaps only the worst-off orchards switched to the new spray).
In causal arguments based on correlation, there is often a failure to consider alternative explanations or reverse causation.
4
Evaluate the options to find one that exploits this gap.
The option stating that farmers only use the new spray when traditional methods fail provides a reason why those specific orchards would have higher damage regardless of the new spray's effectiveness.
This directly undermines the causal relationship claimed in the conclusion, effectively weakening the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying alternate causes for an observed correlation (Selection Bias)
Soru 265Soru →

Marine Biologist: Over the past decade, the population of the silver-finned reef shark in the Salerian Sea has declined by nearly 40 percent. During this same period, commercial fishing operations have steadily increased their use of deep-water drift nets in the region. Since drift nets frequently entangle large marine predators, environmentalists have blamed the fishing industry. However, recent surveys show that the shark population has declined just as sharply in the northern marine sanctuary, where all commercial fishing has been strictly banned for twenty years. Therefore, the increased use of drift nets cannot be the primary cause of the shark's decline.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The silver-finned reef shark is a highly migratory species that spends several months each year foraging in the commercial fishing zones before returning to the northern marine sanctuary.

Cevap

The statement that the silver-finned reef shark is a highly migratory species that travels between the sanctuary and commercial fishing zones.
The correct answer exploits a crucial assumption in the marine biologist's argument: that the sharks living in the sanctuary stay in the sanctuary. If the sharks migrate into the commercial fishing zones for part of the year, they are exposed to the drift nets. This perfectly explains how drift nets could be the primary cause of the population decline even for sharks counted in the fishing-free sanctuary. By showing how the cause (nets) can still produce the effect (decline) despite the author's counter-evidence, this severely weakens the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the increased use of drift nets cannot be the primary cause of the shark's decline.
This is the main claim the marine biologist is trying to prove based on the provided evidence.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The primary premise is that the shark population declined just as sharply in a marine sanctuary where fishing is banned.
Understanding the evidence helps identify the logical gap the author is relying on.
3
Identify the assumption connecting the premise to the conclusion.
The argument assumes that the sharks in the sanctuary are a distinct, isolated population that is never exposed to the drift nets used in the commercial zones.
If the sanctuary sharks are exposed to the nets elsewhere, the decline in the sanctuary could still be caused by those nets.
4
Select the option that attacks this assumption.
The option stating the sharks migrate between the zones directly attacks the assumption.
If they migrate, the sanctuary sharks are being killed by the nets when they leave the sanctuary, which perfectly explains why the sanctuary population is also dropping. This destroys the biologist's reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying implicit spatial or temporal assumptions in causal reasoning.
Soru 266Soru →

Ecologist: A forest ecosystem is truly stable only if it contains a highly diverse network of mycorrhizal fungi. Recent soil analyses confirm that the newly protected Blackwood Reserve contains one of the most highly diverse networks of mycorrhizal fungi ever documented in the region. Therefore, we can confidently conclude that the Blackwood Reserve is a stable forest ecosystem.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It treats a condition that is required for a forest ecosystem to be stable as a condition that guarantees the stability of that ecosystem.

Cevap

The argument treats a condition that is required for a forest ecosystem to be stable as a condition that guarantees the stability of that ecosystem.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the ecologist confuses a necessary condition with a sufficient condition. The first premise establishes that a highly diverse network of mycorrhizal fungi is required (a necessary condition) for a stable ecosystem. The argument then observes that the Blackwood Reserve meets this requirement and incorrectly concludes that simply meeting this requirement is enough (a sufficient condition) to guarantee that the ecosystem is stable.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise 1: If a forest ecosystem is stable, it must have highly diverse fungi (Stable -> Diverse Fungi). Premise 2: Blackwood Reserve has highly diverse fungi. Conclusion: Blackwood Reserve is stable.
Breaking down the argument structure is essential to evaluating its logical validity.
2
Analyze the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument affirms the necessary condition (the presence of diverse fungi) and incorrectly uses it to deduce the sufficient condition (that the ecosystem is stable).
This identifies the exact gap or error in the reasoning process.
3
Select the option that accurately describes this specific logical error.
The correct option states that the argument confuses a required (necessary) condition with a guaranteeing (sufficient) condition.
This matches the 'necessary vs. sufficient' flaw demonstrated in the stimulus perfectly.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Soru 267Soru →

Political Sociologist: To foster genuine civic engagement, a local government must provide its citizens with transparent access to public records. When citizens lack this transparency, they inevitably become cynical about the political process and withdraw from public participation. The municipality of Oakhaven has recently overhauled its digital infrastructure, successfully guaranteeing complete public access to all municipal records. Consequently, Oakhaven is guaranteed to experience a resurgence in genuine civic engagement.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: treats a condition that is necessary for bringing about a desired state of affairs as if it were a condition sufficient to bring about that state of affairs

Cevap

The argument treats a condition that is necessary for bringing about a desired state of affairs as if it were a condition sufficient to bring about that state of affairs.
The sociologist's argument states that transparent access is 'must' or 'required' for civic engagement. In conditional logic, this makes transparency a necessary condition. The author then observes that Oakhaven has achieved this transparency and concludes that civic engagement is 'guaranteed' to happen. This relies on the flawed assumption that fulfilling a necessary condition is sufficient to guarantee the outcome, matching the abstract description perfectly.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional statements in the premises.
Premise 1 establishes that Transparent Access is a requirement (necessary condition) for Genuine Civic Engagement. Premise 2 confirms the contrapositive: without Transparent Access, there is no Genuine Civic Engagement.
Identifying the formal logic structure is required to spot the exact logical gap in conditional reasoning.
2
Identify the argument's conclusion.
The conclusion states that because Oakhaven has achieved Transparent Access, it will definitely experience Genuine Civic Engagement.
Comparing the premises to the conclusion reveals how the author applies the evidence to reach their final claim.
3
Evaluate the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
The author affirms the necessary condition (Transparent Access) to conclude the sufficient condition (Civic Engagement), committing the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
This abstractly identifies the flaw needed to select the correct option.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Conditional Logic Flaws (Illegal Reversal / Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions)
Soru 268Soru →

Read the argument and evaluate the statement that follows.

City Planner: Any city that successfully revitalizes its downtown commercial district must offer extensive public parking. The municipality of Riverbend recently constructed several large public parking facilities in its downtown area. Therefore, Riverbend's downtown commercial district will undoubtedly be successfully revitalized.

Statement: The city planner's argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it treats a condition that is necessary to bring about a particular outcome as a condition that is sufficient to guarantee that outcome.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

The statement is true because it accurately describes the structural flaw in the planner's conditional reasoning.
The statement is true. The argument structurally establishes that extensive parking is required (necessary) for a downtown revitalization. It then concludes that because Riverbend met this requirement, the revitalization is guaranteed (sufficient). Treating a requirement as a guarantee is the classic necessary vs. sufficient logical flaw, which the statement describes perfectly.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional statement in the argument's first premise.
The premise states: 'Any city that successfully revitalizes... must offer extensive public parking.' This translates to: If Revitalized -> Then Extensive Parking.
Identifying the formal logic structure is the first step in diagnosing conditional reasoning flaws.
2
Identify the argument's secondary premise and conclusion.
Premise 2: Riverbend has extensive parking. Conclusion: Riverbend will be revitalized.
To find the flaw, we must see how the author moves from the premises to the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical transition for errors.
The argument observes the necessary condition (parking) being met, and infers that the sufficient condition (revitalization) must follow. This is an illegal reversal.
Recognizing the mismatch between what the premises support and what the conclusion claims exposes the specific vulnerability.
4
Compare the identified error to the provided statement.
The statement describes treating a necessary condition (parking) as a sufficient condition (a guarantee of revitalization). This matches the error found in Step 3.
This confirms whether the abstract description accurately targets the stimulus's flaw.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Confusion of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Soru 269Soru →

Read the following argument:

Mayor: To boost local tourism, we should allocate municipal funding to restore the historic Riverton Mill. Our neighboring town, Greendale, restored their historic train station last year, and they saw a 25 percent increase in tourist visits this summer. Therefore, restoring our mill will similarly increase Riverton's tourist visits.

Evaluate the following statement: The mayor's argument is actively weakened by the fact that Riverton's historic mill is structurally compromised and will require significantly more funding to restore than Greendale's train station did.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The correct answer is False. In Logical Reasoning, when evaluating a proposed plan, you must strictly focus on the stated conclusion. The mayor concludes that the restoration will 'increase Riverton's tourist visits.' A fact about the financial cost of the restoration does not impact its tourist appeal and therefore does not weaken the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the mayor's argument.
The conclusion is that restoring the mill will increase Riverton's tourist visits.
Understanding the exact claim being made is essential, as any weakening evidence must directly attack this specific claim.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premise is an analogy to Greendale, which saw a 25 percent increase in tourism after restoring its historic train station.
Weakening an argument often involves showing why the premises do not necessarily lead to the conclusion, such as finding a flaw in an analogy.
3
Analyze the impact of the new statement on the argument.
The new statement introduces a practical and financial challenge (higher cost due to structural compromise).
This step determines whether the new information attacks the causal link or addresses an unrelated issue.
4
Determine if the statement actively weakens the conclusion.
The statement does not weaken the argument because the cost of restoration has no bearing on whether tourists will actually visit the completed mill.
Attacking the feasibility of a plan does not weaken a conclusion that is strictly about the plan's efficacy.

Anahtar Kavram

Scope Shift and Evaluating Proposed Plans
Soru 270Soru →

Retail Manager: We should shift our promotional focus from weekend afternoon events to weekday evening events. At our most recent weekday evening event, 40 percent of the attendees purchased a premium membership. By contrast, at our most recent weekend afternoon event, only 15 percent of the attendees purchased a premium membership. Clearly, the weekday evening event generated a greater total number of premium membership sales than the weekend afternoon event did.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: confuses a claim about the percentage of a group exhibiting a certain behavior with a claim about the absolute number of individuals exhibiting that behavior.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument confuses a percentage with an absolute number.
The argument commits a classic 'percentage versus number' fallacy. It draws a definitive conclusion about a total absolute quantity (the total number of sales) based purely on comparative percentages (40 percent vs. 15 percent). This reasoning is flawed because it fails to establish the total size of the two groups being compared. If 1,000 people attended the weekend event and only 50 attended the weekday event, 15 percent of the weekend crowd (150 sales) would vastly exceed 40 percent of the weekday crowd (20 sales).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises and the conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: 40% of weekday event attendees bought a membership. Premise 2: 15% of weekend event attendees bought a membership. Conclusion: The weekday event resulted in a greater total number of sales.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to evaluate the logical relationship between the evidence and the claim.
2
Analyze the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises offer relative, proportional data (percentages), while the conclusion makes a definitive claim about an absolute quantity (total number of sales).
Recognizing the shift from proportional language to absolute language reveals the core vulnerability.
3
Formulate a description of the flaw.
The argument assumes that a higher percentage guarantees a higher total number, entirely ignoring the total size of the two groups (the number of attendees at each event).
To accurately answer the question, one must describe the error in abstract logical terms.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Percentages vs. Numbers
Soru 271Soru →

Musicologist: The upcoming symphony relies on a highly unusual compositional approach. Each individual instrument in the orchestra has been assigned a part that consists entirely of soothing, traditional melodies. Therefore, when the orchestra performs the piece, the overall acoustic effect of the symphony will undoubtedly be soothing and traditional.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: presumes, without providing justification, that a whole will possess a certain characteristic simply because all of its constituent parts possess that characteristic

Cevap

The argument commits a Fallacy of Composition by inferring that a whole will possess a certain property merely because all of its parts possess that property.
The correct answer accurately describes the Fallacy of Composition. The musicologist assumes that because each individual part of the symphony is soothing and traditional (the parts), the entire symphony played together (the whole) will also possess these same characteristics. This overlooks the fact that individually soothing melodies can clash and create severe dissonance when played simultaneously.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises.
Premise: Each individual instrument plays a part consisting entirely of soothing, traditional melodies.
Understanding the evidence provided is the first step to pinpointing the logical gap.
2
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
Conclusion: The overall acoustic effect of the entire symphony will be soothing and traditional.
Isolating the conclusion allows us to see exactly what the author is trying to prove.
3
Evaluate the logical connection between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that combining individually soothing melodies will necessarily result in a soothing whole, ignoring the high probability that playing many different melodies simultaneously could result in a chaotic or dissonant sound.
This reveals a part-to-whole flaw, formally known as the Fallacy of Composition.

Anahtar Kavram

Fallacy of Composition (Part-to-Whole Flaw)
Soru 272Soru →

Archaeologists recently unearthed a set of highly standardized basalt weights in the ruins of Kaelen, an inland settlement dating to roughly 1800 BCE. These weights are virtually identical in mass and geometric shape to the standard merchant weights used during the same era in the distant coastal metropolis of Tylos. Historians have long maintained that the treacherous mountain range separating the two regions prevented any direct contact before 1200 BCE. Nonetheless, based on the discovery of these matched weights, Dr. Aris concludes that Kaelen and Tylos must have established a direct trade network with one another by 1800 BCE.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens Dr. Aris's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Both Kaelen and Tylos independently conducted extensive commerce with a nomadic merchant guild that strictly enforced its own standardized weight system across all its trading partners.

Cevap

The statement indicating that both cities traded independently with a nomadic merchant guild that enforced its own weight system.
The argument concludes that there was direct trade between Kaelen and Tylos based on the fact that they used identical weights. The correct answer weakens this conclusion by introducing a viable alternate explanation: a third-party nomadic guild traded with both cities and mandated the uniform weights. This completely accounts for the identical weights while maintaining that Kaelen and Tylos never interacted directly.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that Kaelen and Tylos established a direct trade network by 1800 BCE.
To weaken an argument, we must first isolate exactly what the author is trying to prove.
2
Identify the primary premise supporting the conclusion.
The primary evidence is that highly standardized basalt weights found in Kaelen are virtually identical to those used in Tylos during the same era.
Understanding the evidence allows us to spot the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
3
Analyze the logical gap in the argument.
The author assumes that because the weights are identical, the two cities must have interacted directly. The gap is the assumption that no third party or alternate cause could account for the shared weight system.
Weaken questions require exploiting this gap by finding an answer choice that presents a plausible alternative explanation.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that exploits the logical gap.
The choice involving a nomadic merchant guild provides a third-party intermediary, explaining how both cities obtained identical weights without any direct contact.
This directly severs the link between the evidence (identical weights) and the conclusion (direct trade).

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Alternate Causes in Causal/Correlational Arguments
Soru 273Soru →

Archaeologist: Excavations at the ancient settlement of Veridia have uncovered hundreds of specialized obsidian tools. Obsidian does not occur naturally anywhere near Veridia. The nearest known geological source of obsidian from that era is the Khalen mountain range, located over 500 miles away. Interestingly, other settlements surrounding Veridia from the same time period show absolutely no evidence of obsidian use. Clearly, the inhabitants of Veridia must have established a direct, exclusive trade route with the people living in the Khalen mountains.

Consider the following statement: Nomadic hunter-gatherer groups frequently traveled between the Khalen mountains and the Veridian region, bartering raw materials for food with isolated settlements along their migration paths.

The provided statement, if true, actively weakens the archaeologist's argument.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True, the statement weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the presence of the obsidian.
The archaeologist concludes that the people of Veridia must have established a direct trade route based on the presence of distant obsidian. The provided statement introduces an alternative explanation: nomadic groups acted as intermediaries. If nomads brought the obsidian to Veridia and traded it, the Veridians would not have needed to establish a direct trade route themselves. This alternative explanation accounts for all the premises but makes the conclusion less likely to be true, thereby weakening the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: The inhabitants of Veridia established a direct, exclusive trade route with the people in the Khalen mountains.
To evaluate whether an argument is weakened, you must precisely understand what the author is trying to prove.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premises: Obsidian is found in Veridia; the nearest source is 500 miles away; neighboring settlements do not have obsidian.
Understanding the evidence reveals the logical leap the author makes.
3
Identify the logical assumption linking the premises to the conclusion.
The author assumes that a 'direct, exclusive trade route' is the only way Veridia could have uniquely acquired materials from 500 miles away.
Exposing the assumption reveals the argument's vulnerability to alternative explanations.
4
Evaluate the impact of the new statement.
The statement shows that nomadic tribes could have carried the obsidian as middlemen. This severs the assumed necessity of a 'direct' route established by Veridia.
Introducing a plausible alternative explanation that accounts for the evidence (presence of obsidian) without requiring the conclusion (direct trade route) actively weakens the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating alternative explanations to undermine causal or historical reasoning.
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 274Soru →

HR Director: Every engineer assigned to the new Alpha Project team is a recognized expert who has individually produced highly efficient, bug-free code on past solo assignments. Because the team is composed exclusively of such exceptional programmers, the team as a whole will undoubtedly produce highly efficient, bug-free software.

The reasoning in the HR Director's argument is flawed in that it:

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: presumes, without providing justification, that a whole will possess a certain property merely because each of its parts possesses that property

Cevap

The argument assumes that a whole will possess a certain property merely because each of its parts possesses that property.
The argument demonstrates a classic Fallacy of Composition. It takes a characteristic that applies to the individual components of a group (the engineers individually write flawless code) and incorrectly concludes that the group as an entire entity will automatically exhibit that exact same characteristic. This logic is flawed because it fails to consider that the interaction of the parts (e.g., communication breakdowns, conflicting coding styles) might prevent the whole from functioning the way the parts do in isolation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the premises provided in the stimulus.
Premise 1: Each individual engineer on the team has a history of writing flawless code on solo projects. Premise 2: The team is made up entirely of these engineers.
Identifying the foundation of the argument is necessary to evaluate the logic used to reach the conclusion.
2
Identify the main conclusion.
Conclusion: The team as a whole will definitely produce flawless software.
Isolating the conclusion allows for the identification of the gap between the evidence and the final claim.
3
Determine the logical gap or assumption connecting the premises to the conclusion.
The argument assumes that bringing talented individuals together guarantees a talented collective outcome, ignoring how parts interact when combined.
Recognizing this gap reveals the specific structural flaw in the reasoning.
4
Match the identified gap to the correct logical fallacy.
This is the Fallacy of Composition, which occurs when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some or all of the parts.
Standardized test questions require matching the abstract description of the fallacy to the specific error made.

Anahtar Kavram

Fallacy of Composition / Division
Soru 275Soru →

Match each flawed argument to the statement that most accurately describes the logical error committed in its reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A recent study found that people who regularly drink green tea are less likely to develop heart disease. Therefore, compounds in green tea must actively protect the heart.
Our competitor's market share increased by 10%10\% this year, while our market share only increased by 5%5\%. Clearly, our competitor gained more new customers than we did.
To be eligible for the new city grant, a business must operate sustainably. The local bakery operates sustainably, so it will undoubtedly receive the city grant.
The professor argues that human beings are fundamentally free. But this is absurd, as almost everything we buy requires money, meaning nothing is truly free.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The green tea argument matches the correlation/causation flaw; the market share argument matches the percentage versus number flaw; the city grant argument matches the necessary versus sufficient flaw; and the professor argument matches the equivocation flaw.
Each flawed argument exhibits one classic logical fallacy perfectly described by its corresponding abstract statement. Matching the structural error to the abstract description demonstrates an understanding of how distinct logical leaps operate across different contexts.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the 'green tea' argument to identify its premises and conclusion.
Identified that a statistical association is used to justify a definitive causal relationship.
Recognizing the gap between correlation and causation is a fundamental step in evaluating scientific or health-related arguments.
2
Examine the 'market share' argument's use of statistics.
Noted that 10%10\% and 5%5\% are relative values, but the conclusion makes a claim about absolute values (the raw number of new customers).
Percentage increases cannot determine absolute volume unless the original baseline totals are known.
3
Map the conditional logic in the 'city grant' argument.
Identified 'operate sustainably' as a necessary requirement for eligibility, which the author mistakenly treats as sufficient for actual receipt of the grant.
Understanding formal logic structures prevents confusing requirements with guarantees.
4
Evaluate the vocabulary used in the 'professor' argument.
Spotted that 'free' is used to mean philosophical autonomy in the premise, but monetary cost in the rebuttal.
Arguments must use key terms consistently to be structurally sound.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Common Logical Fallacies in Arguments
Soru 276Soru →

Match each argument on the left with the piece of counter-evidence on the right that most effectively weakens its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

To increase overall productivity, the city government should adopt a 4-day workweek, just as TechCorp did when they saw a 20% boost in output.
The mayor's new law enforcement policies are highly effective, as violent crime has dropped by 15% since she took office.
Most home cooks clearly prefer gas stoves, since a recent survey of 'Gourmet Chef' magazine readers showed that 80% prefer gas over electric.
The city should install more crosswalks to reduce pedestrian accidents, given that the downtown area has the most crosswalks and the lowest accident rate.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match each argument with the specific counter-evidence that exploits its logical flaw: the workweek argument pairs with the differing job roles; the crime argument pairs with the demographic shift; the stove preference argument pairs with the unrepresentative survey sample; and the crosswalk argument pairs with the alternate cause of low speed limits.
Each argument contains a distinct logical flaw: a false analogy, a correlation-causation error, a sampling bias, and a third-variable issue. The correct pairings directly exploit these specific gaps, providing alternative explanations or demonstrating that the premises do not guarantee the conclusions.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first argument regarding the 4-day workweek and TechCorp.
Identify that it relies on a comparison (analogy). Look for evidence showing the two entities are not comparable. This matches the statement about TechCorp's flexible projects versus city workers' scheduled service.
Attacking the relevant similarities between two compared items is the primary way to weaken an argument by analogy.
2
Analyze the second argument regarding the mayor's policies and the drop in crime.
Identify a correlation-to-causation flaw. Look for an alternative explanation for the drop in crime. This matches the statement about the demographic shift reducing the crime-prone population.
Providing an alternate cause weakens the conclusion that the stated cause (the mayor's policies) was responsible for the observed effect.
3
Analyze the third argument regarding home cooks and the magazine survey.
Identify a sampling flaw. Look for evidence that the sample does not represent the broader population. This matches the statement that the magazine readers are mostly professional chefs, not typical home cooks.
Showing a sample is biased or unrepresentative invalidates conclusions drawn about the general population based on that sample.
4
Analyze the fourth argument regarding crosswalks and pedestrian accidents.
Identify a flawed causal conclusion drawn from a localized observation. Look for a third factor that causes the observed effect. This matches the statement about downtown's strict speed limits and congestion.
Introducing a third variable that accounts for the observed phenomenon (low accident rates) weakens the original causal claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying and exploiting specific logical flaws in arguments, such as false analogies, alternate causes, biased samples, and third-variable correlations.
Soru 277Soru →

Sociologist: A recent study of corporate professionals reveals a strong positive correlation between the number of hours an individual spends reading fiction per month and their demonstrated empathy in collaborative settings. Therefore, the habit of reading fiction directly enhances a person's capacity for empathy.

Evaluate the following statement as true or false:

The introduction of new data showing that professionals who spend comparable hours reading exclusively non-fiction literature do not exhibit these elevated levels of empathy actively weakens the sociologist's argument.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement asserts that the new data weakens the argument. However, the new data actually strengthens the argument. The sociologist concludes that reading specifically fiction causes empathy. The new data shows that when people read non-fiction instead (the specific cause is absent), they do not show elevated empathy (the effect is absent). This eliminates the alternative explanation that the general act of reading increases empathy, thereby making the precise causal link between fiction and empathy stronger. Because the data strengthens the argument, the statement claiming it weakens the argument is strictly false.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the sociologist's argument structure.
Premise: Correlation between reading fiction and empathy. Conclusion: Reading fiction causes an increase in empathy.
Identifying the specific causal claim is necessary to evaluate the impact of new evidence.
2
Evaluate the new factual assertion provided in the statement.
The new data introduces a group that reads non-fiction (the specific cause is absent) and does not show elevated empathy (the effect is absent).
Understanding the nature of the new data is required to test its logical effect on the argument.
3
Determine the logical impact of the new data on the original causal claim.
The data eliminates an alternative explanation (that reading in general causes empathy), thereby strengthening the specific claim that reading fiction is the cause.
In causal reasoning, demonstrating that the effect is absent when the proposed cause is absent strengthens the conclusion by ruling out alternate causes.

Anahtar Kavram

Causal reasoning and control groups: eliminating alternative explanations strengthens a causal conclusion.
Soru 278Soru →

Marine biologist: Over the last decade, the population of the blue-crested penguin on Solara Island has dropped by 30 percent. During this same ten-year period, the number of commercial fishing vessels operating in the island's surrounding waters has doubled. The nets used by these vessels are known to frequently entangle and drown deep-diving seabirds. Therefore, the increase in commercial fishing must be the primary cause of the decline in the blue-crested penguin population.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the marine biologist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The blue-crested penguin only dives for prey during daylight hours, while the commercial fishing vessels deploy their nets exclusively at night.

Cevap

The statement that the penguins only dive during the day while the nets are deployed exclusively at night.
The correct answer destroys the causal mechanism proposed by the author. If the penguins are strictly diurnal and the nets are deployed exclusively at night, the penguins cannot possibly be getting caught in the nets. This completely undermines the conclusion that the nets are responsible for the population decline.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's conclusion.
The increase in commercial fishing is the primary cause of the decline in the blue-crested penguin population.
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to find evidence that undermines it.
2
Identify the premises and the proposed causal mechanism.
Premises: Penguin population dropped 30%; fishing vessels doubled; the nets used frequently entangle and drown deep-diving seabirds.
Weaken questions often hinge on the specific mechanism linking the premises to the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap (assumption) in the argument.
The argument assumes that the blue-crested penguins on Solara Island are actually encountering these nets and getting entangled in them.
Finding the unstated assumption reveals the vulnerability of the argument.
4
Evaluate the options to find one that attacks this assumption.
The correct option shows that temporal separation (day vs. night) makes it impossible for the penguins to encounter the nets, entirely severing the causal link.
Severing the specific causal mechanism is one of the strongest ways to weaken a causal argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Weakening a Causal Argument by Severing the Mechanism
Soru 279Soru →

Book Reviewer: Professor Lin's new book argues that modern agricultural practices are severely depleting soil nutrients and threatening long-term food security. However, Professor Lin recently accepted a lucrative position at an institute funded exclusively by organic farming advocacy groups. Since she has a clear financial incentive to promote alternatives to modern agriculture, her conclusions regarding soil depletion are completely invalid.

Statement: The book reviewer's argument is vulnerable to criticism because it illicitly infers a causal connection between two factors based solely on their observed association.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement incorrectly identifies the flaw. The argument commits a source argument (ad hominem) fallacy, not a causal fallacy.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the book reviewer's argument.
Conclusion: Professor Lin's conclusions are completely invalid. Premises: Lin took a position funded by organic farming groups, giving her a financial incentive to critique modern agriculture.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step in identifying its logical flaw.
2
Determine the actual logical flaw committed in the stimulus.
The flaw is an ad hominem (circumstantial) attack. The reviewer dismisses the claim because of the source's motives rather than addressing the evidence.
Understanding the true flaw allows for comparison against the provided statement.
3
Evaluate the provided statement against the actual flaw.
The statement describes a correlation-to-causation fallacy, which does not match the ad hominem flaw present in the stimulus.
This confirms whether the statement accurately characterizes the argument's vulnerability.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying a source argument (ad hominem) fallacy and distinguishing it from causal fallacies.
Soru 280Soru →

Marine biologists studying the decline of coral reefs around the Tolman Islands have blamed the recent rise in local water temperatures. However, a new study shows that reefs surrounding the neighboring Banton Islands, which have experienced the exact same rise in water temperatures, are thriving and show no signs of decline. Therefore, it is clear that rising water temperatures are not the primary cause of the coral decline around the Tolman Islands.

Statement: The assertion that the coral species dominating the Banton Islands reefs possess a unique genetic adaptation making them highly resilient to temperature fluctuations—an adaptation absent in the coral species found around the Tolman Islands—actively weakens the argument above.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The introduced assertion actively weakens the argument by destroying the validity of the comparison between the two island reef systems.
The statement is true. The original argument relies on a direct comparison between the Tolman and Banton reefs to conclude that water temperature is not the culprit for coral decline. The new assertion introduces a crucial biological difference, showing that Banton corals can survive temperature spikes that Tolman corals cannot. This completely severs the logical link between the premise (Banton's survival) and the conclusion (temperature is harmless to Tolman), thereby severely weakening the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument's premises and conclusion.
Premise: Banton Islands experienced the same temperature rise as Tolman Islands but their reefs are thriving. Conclusion: Rising temperatures are not the primary cause of the Tolman Islands' coral decline.
Deconstructing the stimulus is necessary to evaluate the logical relationship between the evidence and the conclusion.
2
Determine the method of reasoning used in the argument.
The author uses an analogy or comparison, assuming that because the two island groups share one trait (rising temperatures), the outcome should be identical unless temperature is not the true causal factor.
Identifying the assumption (that the two reefs are otherwise highly comparable) highlights the argument's central vulnerability.
3
Evaluate the impact of the new assertion on the argument's central assumption.
The assertion introduces a critical biological difference: Banton corals have a unique genetic resistance to temperature fluctuations that Tolman corals lack.
This step determines whether the new information exposes a flaw in the argument's comparative reasoning.
4
Conclude whether the factual assertion weakens the argument.
Since the Banton corals are biologically equipped to survive the temperature rise while Tolman corals are not, the initial comparison is entirely invalid. This undermines the conclusion.
A factual assertion that destroys the foundational assumption of an argument by analogy successfully weakens the overall conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating comparative arguments by identifying relevant differences that invalidate an analogy.
ÖncekiSayfa 14 / 15Sonraki
Argument Evaluation Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 14 | Examkin