Argument Evaluation

289 soru

Soru 81Soru →

Tech Entrepreneur: For a technology startup to achieve long-term financial stability, it is absolutely essential that it secures a major round of venture capital funding during its first year. Our chief competitor, Vertex Innovations, just announced that they secured a massive round of venture capital funding in their first year of operation. Consequently, it is certain that Vertex Innovations will achieve long-term financial stability.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the flaw in the tech entrepreneur's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It treats a condition that is necessary for a certain outcome as if it were a condition that is sufficient to produce that outcome.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument treats a condition that is necessary for a certain outcome as if it were a condition that is sufficient to produce that outcome.
The argument's first sentence establishes that early venture capital funding is a necessary condition for long-term financial stability. However, the conclusion assumes that because Vertex Innovations achieved this necessary condition, long-term financial stability is "certain." This erroneously treats a requirement as a guarantee.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first sentence to identify the conditional relationship established by the premises.
The premise states: Financial Stability -> Venture Capital Funding (funding is necessary).
Understanding the exact logical conditions presented in the premises is crucial before evaluating the conclusion.
2
Analyze the remaining sentences to identify the application of the rule and the final conclusion.
The stimulus notes Vertex met the necessary condition (they got funding) and concludes Vertex will reach the sufficient condition (they will achieve stability).
Mapping the conclusion against the initial premises reveals the structural gap in the argument.
3
Identify the mismatch between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument commits an illegal reversal, assuming that because the necessary condition was met, the sufficient condition is guaranteed.
Matching the structural gap to standard logical fallacies provides the exact description of the reasoning flaw.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Conditional Logic Flaws (Illegal Reversal)
Soru 82Soru →

The following exercise presents four short arguments on various topics. For each argument, select the single piece of newly discovered information that exposes its most significant logical vulnerability and weakens its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Archaeologist: A newly discovered ancient desert settlement contains thousands of fish bones. Thus, this arid region must have featured a large freshwater lake during the era the settlement was occupied.
Cafe Owner: Since we switched to a less expensive brand of coffee beans, our weekly sales revenue has dropped by 15%15\%. Clearly, our customers dislike the taste of the new coffee and are consequently purchasing less.
Biologist: A certain species of tree frog has vibrant blue skin. Since most brightly colored amphibians are highly venomous, this frog's coloration must serve as a warning to predators about its toxicity.
Manager: We introduced a new productivity application intended to help employees complete tasks faster. A month later, employees logged the exact same number of total working hours as before. Thus, the application did not increase employee productivity.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The archaeological argument matches the fact about coastal trading networks. The business argument matches the fact about municipal utility work blocking access. The biological argument matches the fact about the absence of toxin-synthesizing insects. The tech management argument matches the fact about the massive new client increasing workload.
Each correct pairing successfully introduces a fact that attacks the unstated assumption of its respective argument. The trade fact provides an alternative source for the fish, the construction provides an alternative cause for lost revenue, the biological fact removes the mechanism for toxicity, and the workload fact proves productivity actually increased despite flat hours.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and the supporting premise for each argument.
Isolated four distinct logical gaps: assuming local origin of artifacts, assuming a single cause for a revenue drop, assuming toxicity from coloration, and conflating flat work hours with flat productivity.
To weaken an argument, one must first locate the gap or assumption between the evidence provided and the conclusion drawn.
2
Evaluate the counter-evidence to find alternative explanations or facts that directly attack these specific assumptions.
The trade fact attacks local origin. The construction fact attacks the revenue cause. The diet fact attacks actual toxicity. The workload fact re-contextualizes the flat work hours.
The correct weakener will specifically exploit the vulnerability of its target argument without relying on unwarranted outside assumptions.
3
Pair the arguments with their corresponding weakeners.
All four pairs are logically matched.
Confirming that each piece of evidence uniquely and effectively undermines its specific target argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying alternative causal explanations and recognizing when arguments rely on flawed assumptions to bridge premises and conclusions.
Soru 83Soru →

Economic Historian: Some scholars attribute the abrupt economic collapse of the Vaelorian empire to hyperinflation driven by the over-mining of krytium, the rare metal that served as their sole currency. This hypothesis is entirely untenable. Archaeological evidence confirms that krytium was notoriously difficult to extract using Vaelorian technology, meaning the total supply of available krytium could not have increased rapidly enough to trigger hyperinflation. Consequently, the Vaelorian economic collapse must have been precipitated by an external shock, such as a prolonged drought or foreign embargo, rather than by any internal monetary policy.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The execution of any internal monetary policy capable of precipitating the Vaelorian economic collapse would have necessitated a rapid expansion of the krytium supply.

Cevap

The assumption that any destructive internal monetary policy would require a rapid expansion of the krytium supply.
The correct answer bridges the logical gap between the evidence and the conclusion. The economic historian provides evidence that one specific monetary phenomenon (hyperinflation via over-mining krytium) was physically impossible. From this single piece of evidence, the historian leaps to the conclusion that absolutely NO internal monetary policy could have caused the collapse, leaving an external shock as the only remaining explanation. This dramatic shift in scope requires assuming that no other internal monetary policies could have caused the collapse without a rapid expansion of krytium. If an internal policy could cause the collapse without rapidly expanding krytium, the entire conclusion falls apart.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The Vaelorian economic collapse must have been precipitated by an external shock rather than by any internal monetary policy.
To determine what an argument assumes, you must first precisely define the final claim it is trying to prove.
2
Identify the primary premises supporting the conclusion.
Krytium was too difficult to extract for its supply to increase rapidly enough to trigger hyperinflation.
Assumptions serve as the unstated logical bridge between the explicitly stated premises and the main conclusion.
3
Analyze the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premise eliminates one specific internal monetary issue (hyperinflation via over-mining). However, the conclusion abruptly rules out ALL internal monetary policies.
Identifying the scope shift from a specific instance to a broad categorical claim reveals the exact missing link in the author's reasoning.
4
Formulate the necessary assumption and apply the Negation Test to the options.
The argument must assume that eliminating the specific issue (rapid krytium expansion) effectively eliminates the entire category (destructive internal monetary policies). The correct option states this directly.
The Negation Test confirms a necessary assumption: if negating the statement destroys the argument's validity, it is logically required.

Anahtar Kavram

Scope Shifts and Necessary Assumptions
Soru 84Soru →

Financial analyst: In the city of Veridia, the vacancy rate for commercial office spaces has doubled over the past three years. Surprisingly, the average asking rent for available office spaces in the city has increased by 15% during this same period. This rent increase is undoubtedly driven by landlords aggressively renovating their vacant properties to premium 'Class A' status, which naturally commands a higher market price.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the financial analyst's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The commercial properties that became vacant over the past three years were almost exclusively older, lower-tier office spaces that previously commanded the lowest rents in the city.

Cevap

The option stating that the properties that became vacant were almost exclusively older, lower-tier office spaces that previously commanded the lowest rents in the city.
The correct answer strengthens the argument by ruling out a statistical alternative cause. If the properties that recently became vacant were the cheapest in the city, adding them to the 'available' pool should have dragged the average asking rent down. The fact that the average went up by 15% instead means that the asking prices for these newly vacant spaces must have been raised dramatically. This strongly validates the analyst's conclusion that the landlords actively renovated these spaces to command higher prices.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core components of the argument.
Premises: Vacancy doubled, but average asking rent of available spaces increased by 15%. Conclusion: Landlords are renovating vacant spaces to premium status.
Understanding the exact causal claim and the evidence provided is necessary to identify gaps in the reasoning.
2
Identify the logical gap or vulnerability in the argument.
The argument assumes a causal relationship (renovations caused the rent increase) based on statistical data. However, the average rent of available spaces could mathematically increase simply if the newly vacant spaces were already the most expensive ones in the city.
Finding alternative explanations for the evidence is the primary way to evaluate and ultimately strengthen LSAT causal/statistical arguments.
3
Select the option that eliminates the alternative explanation.
The correct option establishes that the newly vacant properties were originally the cheapest. This removes the mathematical artifact as an alternative explanation, leaving the author's causal explanation (renovations) as the most logical reason the average increased.
Ruling out a highly plausible alternative cause is one of the most powerful ways to strengthen an argument on the LSAT.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening causal arguments by ruling out statistical artifacts or alternative causes.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 85Soru →

Archaeologist: Ceramic pots excavated at the lowland Oakhaven site contain high concentrations of variscite, a rare green mineral whose only known natural deposits in the region are located in the distant Obsidian Peaks. Since the ancient Oakhaven inhabitants clearly used variscite to produce their pottery, we can conclude that they must have engaged in long-distance trade with the groups living in the Obsidian Peaks.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The variscite used in the Oakhaven ceramics was not transported to the lowland area by natural geological or hydrological forces prior to the pots being manufactured.

Cevap

The argument relies on the assumption that the variscite was not brought to the lowlands by natural forces.
The argument relies on a 'Defender' assumption to rule out a fatal alternative explanation. The archaeologist assumes that human trade is the only way the variscite could have traveled from the Obsidian Peaks to Oakhaven. This ignores the possibility that natural forces (like glaciers or rivers) carried the mineral down to the lowlands over thousands of years, where the Oakhaven inhabitants could have simply found it locally. For the argument's conclusion to hold, it must necessarily assume this natural transport did not happen.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument structure.
Premise: Oakhaven pots contain variscite, which naturally occurs only in the distant Obsidian Peaks. Conclusion: Oakhaven inhabitants must have traded with the Obsidian Peaks groups to acquire it.
Understanding the premise-conclusion relationship is essential for spotting the logical gap.
2
Locate the logical gap or flaw in the reasoning.
The archaeologist leaps from the geographical origin of the mineral to the conclusion that human trade transported it, failing to consider other methods of transport.
Evaluating how the premise connects to the conclusion reveals unstated alternative explanations that the author must be ruling out.
3
Evaluate the choices using the Negation Test.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The variscite WAS transported by natural geological forces.' If true, the inhabitants could have found the mineral locally, invalidating the need for long-distance trade.
A necessary assumption is a statement that must be true for the conclusion to hold. If negating a statement destroys the argument, that statement is the logically required assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying a 'Defender' assumption that rules out an alternative explanation for the evidence presented in the premises.
Soru 86Soru →

Archaeologist: Fragments of distinctively glazed pottery, known to have been produced exclusively in the coastal city of Aethel around 500 BCE, have been discovered in the ruins of the inland city of Bael, located 300 miles away across a harsh desert. Bael was founded around 450 BCE. From this, we can conclude that merchants from Aethel must have traveled directly across the desert to trade their pottery with the inhabitants of Bael.

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

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Extensive surveys of ancient settlements that could have served as intermediaries between Aethel and Bael have found no evidence of this distinctive pottery.; The only geographical alternative to the desert route between Aethel and Bael was a coastal path that was entirely submerged by rising sea levels prior to 450 BCE.

Cevap

The correct statements are the one eliminating intermediary settlements and the one ruling out an alternative coastal route.
To strengthen the archaeologist's conclusion that Aethel merchants traveled directly across the desert to trade, we must rule out alternative ways the pottery could have arrived. The statement eliminating intermediary settlements rules out indirect trade via middlemen. The statement ruling out the coastal path ensures that if trade happened, it must have been across the desert. Both independently increase the plausibility of the main conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the argument.
Premises: Pottery exclusively from Aethel (500 BCE) was found in Bael (founded 450 BCE), 300 miles away across a desert. Conclusion: Aethel merchants traveled directly across the desert to trade with Bael.
Understanding the core argument structure is required to evaluate logical gaps.
2
Identify logical gaps or unstated assumptions in the argument.
The argument assumes that the trade was direct (not through middlemen), that the route was across the desert (not another path), and that the pottery arrived via trade (not by migrating settlers).
Strengthening an argument often involves providing evidence that bridges a gap or rules out alternative explanations.
3
Evaluate each option against the identified logical gaps.
The option about finding no pottery in intermediary settlements rules out indirect trade. The option about the flooded coastal path rules out an alternative route. Both bridge logical gaps.
To strengthen the conclusion, an option must make the specific scenario proposed by the conclusion more probable.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening an argument by ruling out alternative causal pathways and alternative explanations.
Soru 87Soru →

Anthropologist: Skeletal remains of the prehistoric Xanti people show remarkably low rates of tooth decay, despite their diet consisting primarily of starchy, carbohydrate-rich tubers known to promote dental cavities. The Xanti lived in an area abundant with the mesic tree, and fossilized resin from this tree was frequently found on their teeth. Therefore, the Xanti's habit of chewing mesic resin likely protected their teeth from decay.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Skeletal remains of neighboring prehistoric populations who consumed the same starchy tubers but lacked access to mesic trees exhibit extremely high rates of tooth decay.

Cevap

The statement regarding neighboring prehistoric populations lacking access to mesic trees but exhibiting high rates of tooth decay.
The argument concludes that chewing mesic resin caused the low tooth decay among the Xanti people, despite a high-carbohydrate diet. The correct answer strengthens this causal claim by providing a comparison group: a similar population with the same high-carbohydrate diet but without the mesic resin, who suffered from severe tooth decay. Showing that the expected negative effect occurs when the proposed protective cause is absent is a classic way to strengthen a causal relationship.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's conclusion and premises.
Conclusion: Chewing mesic resin protected the Xanti's teeth from decay. Premises: The Xanti had low tooth decay despite a cavity-promoting starchy diet, and mesic resin was found on their teeth.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to spot the causal claim and the gap in the reasoning.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the argument.
The argument assumes a direct causal relationship between the resin and the lack of decay, without ruling out other factors like regional genetics or alternative dietary elements.
Strengthening a causal argument usually requires ruling out alternative causes or demonstrating the cause-and-effect relationship in a comparative scenario.
3
Evaluate the choices to find evidence that supports the causal link.
The option describing a neighboring population acts as a control group, showing that without the resin (cause absent), severe tooth decay occurs (expected effect).
This directly bolsters the causal claim by verifying that the starchy diet does indeed cause decay in similar populations unless the mesic resin is present.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening Causal Arguments (Cause without Effect / Control Group)
Soru 88Soru →

Historian: Excavations at the ancient city of Tarsos have uncovered a cache of intricate silver jewelry dating to the 2nd century BCE. Chemical analysis shows this silver contains significant traces of platinum. However, there were no known silver mines containing platinum ore within a thousand miles of Tarsos. The only known mines of this type from that era were located in the distant empire of Kaelen. Thus, the presence of this jewelry proves that Tarsos engaged in direct, long-distance trade with Kaelen.

Which of the following are necessary assumptions upon which the historian's argument depends? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The silver used to create the jewelry was not transported from Kaelen to Tarsos entirely by intermediary merchants from other regions.; The silver found in the Tarsian jewelry was not acquired from Kaelen solely through military conquest or looting.

Cevap

The necessary assumptions are that the silver was not transported entirely by intermediaries and that it was not acquired solely through military conquest.
The correct answers identify unstated premises that are logically required for the conclusion to hold. The conclusion specifically claims that Tarsos engaged in 'direct, long-distance trade'. If the silver was transported entirely by intermediary merchants, the trade would be indirect. Similarly, if the silver was acquired solely through military conquest, no 'trade' occurred at all. Therefore, the argument depends on the assumption that neither of these defeating scenarios took place.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure.
The premises state that Tarsos jewelry contains platinum-laced silver, and the only known source is Kaelen. The conclusion claims this proves 'direct, long-distance trade' between Tarsos and Kaelen.
Isolating the exact wording of the conclusion is required to identify logical gaps.
2
Identify potential vulnerabilities in the reasoning.
The conclusion relies on the specific words 'direct' and 'trade'. Alternative explanations for how the silver arrived (e.g., middlemen, theft) would undermine these specific claims.
Necessary assumptions often function as defenders that rule out alternative explanations.
3
Apply the Negation Test to each option.
Negating the option about intermediaries means trade was indirect. Negating the option about military conquest means the silver was stolen, not traded. Both negations destroy the conclusion.
A statement is a necessary assumption if and only if its logical negation invalidates the argument's conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defender Pattern)
Soru 89Soru →

Mayor: The new municipal recreation center includes a state-of-the-art rock climbing wall. Because rock climbing is an excellent full-body workout that builds strength and endurance, the construction of this center will significantly improve the overall physical fitness of our town's residents.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some of the town's residents will use the rock climbing wall at the new center.

Cevap

At least some of the town's residents will use the rock climbing wall at the new center.
For the new recreation center to improve the residents' physical fitness by providing a rock climbing wall, it is logically necessary that residents actually engage in the activity. If we apply the Negation Test and assume that absolutely no residents use the climbing wall, the mayor's conclusion that the center will significantly improve their fitness is completely destroyed. Therefore, this assumption is required.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion.
The construction of the center will significantly improve the overall physical fitness of the town's residents.
Understanding the author's main point is the first step in analyzing an argument.
2
Identify the supporting premise.
The center includes a rock climbing wall, and rock climbing is an excellent full-body workout.
Premises provide the evidence intended to support the conclusion.
3
Locate the gap in the reasoning.
The mayor assumes that providing a fitness facility automatically means it will be utilized.
To logically draw the conclusion, there must be a bridge connecting the existence of the climbing wall to an actual improvement in residents' health.
4
Apply the Negation Test to verify the correct assumption.
Negating the correct answer ('No residents will use the rock climbing wall') completely destroys the mayor's conclusion.
A necessary assumption is one without which the argument fails.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Test
Soru 90Soru →

A university study found that students who study in the library's new Silent Zone score significantly higher on exams than students who study in their own dorm rooms. Based on this correlation, the university administration concludes that the quiet environment of the Silent Zone directly improves students' academic performance. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the administration's conclusion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Students who previously studied in their dorms saw a significant increase in their exam scores after they began studying exclusively in the Silent Zone.

Cevap

The statement demonstrating that students who previously studied in their dorms saw a significant increase in their exam scores after they began studying exclusively in the Silent Zone.
The argument claims a causal relationship: the quiet environment causes higher scores. However, the evidence is merely a correlation. A classic way to strengthen a causal claim on the LSAT is to rule out an alternate cause. The correct answer does exactly this by showing a before-and-after scenario with the same students. If their scores went up only after moving to the Silent Zone, it rules out the alternate explanation that the library simply attracts students who are already smart, thereby heavily supporting the administration's causal conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise: Students in the Silent Zone score higher than those in dorms. Conclusion: The quiet environment of the Silent Zone causes this improvement in academic performance.
Understanding the exact causal claim is required to evaluate what evidence would strengthen it.
2
Identify the logical gap or vulnerability in the reasoning.
The argument assumes causation solely based on a correlation. It is vulnerable to alternate explanations, such as the possibility that naturally higher-achieving students simply prefer studying in the library.
Strengthening questions often require patching a specific flaw by ruling out alternate causes.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that bridges this gap.
The correct option shows a clear before-and-after change for the same individuals, isolating the environment as the likely cause and eliminating the alternate explanation of self-selection.
Ruling out alternate causes is a primary, definitive method for strengthening a causal conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening Causal Arguments by Ruling Out Alternate Explanations
Soru 91Soru →

Marine Biologist: The accelerated structural degradation of the deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in the Boreal Basin over the last twenty years is widely attributed to oceanic acidification. Proponents of this theory argue that higher acidity depletes the dissolved calcium carbonate that the corals extract from the water to build their skeletons. However, recent hydrographic surveys demonstrate that the overall concentration of dissolved calcium carbonate in the Boreal Basin has actually risen by nearly twelve percent over this exact timeframe. Clearly, the degradation of the coral's structure is not a consequence of oceanic acidification, but must stem from a different environmental stressor, such as the recently documented increase in deep-sea trawling.

Statement: If true, the fact that the recent twelve percent increase in dissolved calcium carbonate in the Boreal Basin consists entirely of aragonite—the specific crystalline form of calcium carbonate that constitutes the existing skeletons of Lophelia pertusa and which dissolves rapidly when exposed to higher acidity—weakens the marine biologist's argument.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

The statement is True. The newly introduced fact actively undermines the marine biologist's conclusion by demonstrating that the increased calcium carbonate is actually a symptom of the acidification destroying the coral.
The assertion is true because the newly introduced fact provides a devastating alternate interpretation of the biologist's evidence. The biologist assumes that the twelve percent increase in dissolved calcium carbonate means the environment is hospitable and that acidification isn't starving the coral. However, the new fact reveals that this increase is actually the dissolved remains of the corals' own skeletons. This causal inversion completely destroys the biologist's conclusion by demonstrating that acidification is indeed the direct cause of the degradation, making the statement a powerful weakener.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's core structure to identify the premise and conclusion.
Premise: Dissolved calcium carbonate has risen by twelve percent. Conclusion: Acidification is not causing the coral degradation; a different stressor is responsible.
Isolating the argument's logical core is necessary to identify its structural vulnerabilities.
2
Identify the underlying assumption bridging the premise and the conclusion.
The biologist assumes that an increase in dissolved calcium carbonate means the environment has an abundance of resources for the coral, implying that the corals are safe from the resource depletion normally caused by acidification.
Weakening an argument at the highest level of difficulty almost always requires attacking an unstated, flawed assumption.
3
Apply the new statement's evidence to the biologist's assumption.
The statement reveals that the twelve percent increase is composed of aragonite, which is actively dissolving off the corals' own skeletons as a direct result of higher acidity.
This establishes a causal inversion. The premise (higher carbonate) is not proof of the coral's safety; it is the chemical footprint of the coral being actively destroyed by the exact cause the author prematurely dismissed.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating alternate causes and recognizing causal inversions where evidence intended to disprove a phenomenon actually serves as a direct symptom of it.
Soru 92Soru →

Meteorologist: Over the past decade, the coastal city of Port Nola has experienced a significant increase in the frequency of severe winter storms. Many climatologists attribute this anomaly to a recent, unprecedented shift in the offshore warm-water currents. However, historical weather logs from the 1820s reveal that Port Nola experienced a decade of winter storms of identical frequency and severity, despite the offshore currents remaining perfectly stable during that era. Therefore, the recent shift in ocean currents is probably not the primary cause of the current severe winter storms in Port Nola.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the meteorologist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A cyclical atmospheric pressure pattern, which records indicate was the sole driver of the 1820s winter storms, has recently reformed over the Port Nola coast.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that a cyclical atmospheric pressure pattern, which drove the 1820s storms, has recently reformed over Port Nola.
The correct answer strengthens the argument by providing a highly probable alternative cause that bridges both the historical and current events. By establishing that the exact same atmospheric pressure pattern responsible for the 1820s storms has recently re-emerged, it significantly increases the probability that this cyclical pattern—not the recent shift in ocean currents—is the primary cause of the current storms. This effectively defends the author's reasoning against the possibility that the past and present storms had entirely different causes.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the recent shift in ocean currents is probably not the primary cause of the current severe winter storms.
This establishes the target claim we need to strengthen. It is a rejection of a specific causal relationship.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premise 1: Climatologists blame the new ocean current shift. Premise 2: In the 1820s, identical storms occurred even though the currents were perfectly stable.
Understanding the evidence reveals the author's logic: because the effect happened in the past without the purported cause, the purported cause isn't responsible now.
3
Identify the logical gap or vulnerability in the reasoning.
The argument assumes that whatever caused the storms in the 1820s must also be the cause today, ignoring the possibility that different factors could cause similar storms in different eras.
To strengthen the argument, we must protect it from this vulnerability.
4
Evaluate the options to find one that bridges the gap.
The option introducing the cyclical atmospheric pressure pattern explicitly connects the cause from the 1820s to the present day.
Providing a verified alternative cause that is actively operating during both time periods strongly diminishes the likelihood that the newly shifted ocean currents are to blame.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening Causal Arguments (Alternative Causes)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 93Soru →

City Planner: According to city guidelines, a proposed commercial development can be approved only if it is demonstrated that the project will not compromise the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. The developers of the proposed Apex Industrial Park have submitted a comprehensive study demonstrating that while their project will significantly increase daytime commercial traffic, it will enforce a strict operating curfew that guarantees nighttime noise levels will remain completely unchanged.

Therefore, the Apex project should be approved.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most justifies the city planner's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any proposed commercial development that demonstrates it will prevent any increase in nighttime noise should be approved, regardless of its impact on daytime commercial traffic.

Cevap

The principle stating that any proposed commercial development demonstrating it will prevent any increase in nighttime noise should be approved, regardless of its daytime traffic impact.
The correct answer perfectly bridges the factual premises to the conclusion. The premises establish that the Apex project demonstrates it will keep nighttime noise completely unchanged. The correct principle states that demonstrating this exact fact is sufficient to conclude that a project 'should be approved'. When this conditional principle is applied to the facts, the conclusion becomes logically guaranteed, which is the exact task of a Principle-Justify question.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core conclusion and the premises used to support it.
Conclusion: The Apex project should be approved. Premises: 1) Approval requires demonstrating the residential character won't be compromised (Necessary Condition). 2) The Apex project demonstrates it will increase daytime traffic but keep nighttime noise unchanged.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to spot the logical gap between the evidence provided and the final normative claim.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the argument.
The argument jumps from meeting a factual condition (keeping nighttime noise unchanged) to a normative conclusion (the project should be approved), while trying to distract the reader with a necessary condition rule ('only if' the character is not compromised).
Understanding the precise nature of the flaw or gap reveals what a justifying principle must accomplish.
3
Determine the requirements for the correct principle.
The correct principle must act as a sufficient condition that bridges an established factual premise directly to the conclusion: IF a project keeps nighttime noise unchanged, THEN it should be approved.
A 'Justify' question requires a principle that, when added to the premises, makes the conclusion 100% logically valid.
4
Evaluate the options against the required sufficient condition.
The correct option provides exactly this bridge, stating that demonstrating no increase in nighttime noise is sufficient for approval. Other options either provide necessary conditions, address the wrong gap, or mistakenly assume that satisfying a requirement guarantees approval.
This confirms that the selected option mathematically guarantees the conclusion while eliminating distractors.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient vs. Necessary Conditions in Argument Justification
Soru 94Soru →

Legal Scholar: A legal framework is effective only if it continuously adapts to changing societal norms. Furthermore, a framework adapts to changing societal norms if and only if it grants judges broad interpretative discretion. Hence, any effective legal framework must grant judges broad interpretative discretion. Rigid statutory mandates, however, prevent a legal framework from granting judges broad interpretative discretion. Therefore, it is clear that any jurisdiction whose legal framework relies heavily on rigid statutory mandates will ultimately fail to sustain a prosperous economy.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A jurisdiction can sustain a prosperous economy only if its legal framework is effective.

Cevap

A jurisdiction can sustain a prosperous economy only if its legal framework is effective.
The argument's premises establish a continuous chain of logic: Rigid statutory mandates prevent broad discretion, which prevents adapting to norms, which ultimately means the framework is not effective. So, Rigid Mandates = Not Effective. The conclusion takes a leap, claiming Rigid Mandates = Not Prosperous. To make this conclusion logically bulletproof, we must assume that being 'Not Effective' mathematically guarantees being 'Not Prosperous' (Not Effective -> Not Prosperous). The correct answer provides the logical contrapositive of this exact rule: A prosperous economy requires an effective framework (Prosperous -> Effective). If this is assumed, the scholar's conclusion follows with absolute certainty.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional relationships in the premises.
Effective -> Adapts. Adapts <-> Grants Discretion. Rigid Mandates -> NOT Grants Discretion.
Formal logic mapping is required to see how the premises logically connect to one another.
2
Chain the premises together to find the intermediate deduction.
Since Rigid Mandates -> NOT Grants Discretion, and Effective -> Grants Discretion (via Adapts), it follows that Rigid Mandates -> NOT Effective.
This establishes exactly what we know about jurisdictions with rigid statutory mandates based solely on the provided evidence.
3
Identify the main conclusion and isolate the logical gap.
The main conclusion is: Rigid Mandates -> NOT Prosperous Economy. The gap is between the end of our premise chain ('NOT Effective') and the new term in the conclusion ('NOT Prosperous Economy').
A sufficient assumption must introduce a rule that seamlessly connects the established evidence to the new claim.
4
Formulate the required assumption and find its match in the options.
We need the rule 'NOT Effective -> NOT Prosperous Economy'. The contrapositive of this rule is 'Prosperous Economy -> Effective', which translates to 'A prosperous economy requires an effective framework'. This perfectly matches the correct option.
This bridge makes the conclusion 100% deductively valid, satisfying the task of a Sufficient Assumption question.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption conditional chaining and contrapositives
Soru 95Soru →

Tech Entrepreneur: Critics argue that our new artificial intelligence program, Zenith, lacks genuine creativity because its output is generated merely by recombining pre-existing data from a vast training set. These critics are fundamentally misguided. It is a well-established psychological fact that human creativity invariably involves the recombination of prior knowledge and experiences; no human being creates in a vacuum. Because human artists are universally acknowledged to possess genuine creativity, it logically follows that Zenith, which also operates by recombining prior inputs, must possess genuine creativity as well.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the tech entrepreneur's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It treats a condition that invariably accompanies genuine creativity as a condition that is sufficient to ensure genuine creativity.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument treats a condition that invariably accompanies genuine creativity as sufficient to ensure it.
The correct answer accurately identifies the formal conditional reasoning flaw. The entrepreneur establishes that recombining prior inputs is a necessary component of human creativity (stating it 'invariably involves' it). However, the author then fallaciously concludes that because the AI Zenith also recombines prior inputs, it must be creative. This treats a necessary condition (something required for creativity) as though it were a sufficient condition (something that mathematically guarantees creativity).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
The tech entrepreneur concludes that Zenith must possess genuine creativity.
This is the ultimate claim the entrepreneur is attempting to prove against the critics.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
Premise 1: Human creativity invariably involves the recombination of prior knowledge. Premise 2: Zenith operates by recombining prior inputs.
These are the stated facts utilized to logically justify the conclusion.
3
Analyze the formal logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument establishes that recombination is a necessary condition for creativity ('invariably involves'), and then leverages the fact that Zenith recombines data to conclude Zenith is creative.
Mapping the conditional logic strictly (Creativity -> Recombination; Zenith has Recombination; Therefore Zenith has Creativity) reveals the argument's underlying structural framework.
4
Identify the logical fallacy committed.
The argument confuses a necessary condition with a sufficient condition (Affirming the Consequent).
Just because all genuinely creative entities recombine data, it does not logically follow that all entities that recombine data are genuinely creative.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 96Soru →

Musicologist: A recently discovered manuscript of choral music found in a monastery in Valencia is dated to 1420. This arrangement features a complex system of polyphony that was the hallmark of the Flemish school of composers during the early fifteenth century. Therefore, the manuscript must have been authored by a composer trained in the Flemish musical tradition.

Evaluate whether the following statement is true or false:

The musicologist's argument depends on assuming that the complex polyphony characteristic of the Flemish school was not independently developed by composers native to Valencia around 1420.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement accurately identifies a necessary assumption. The argument leaps from the premise that the manuscript matches a Flemish style to the absolute conclusion that the composer must have been trained in the Flemish tradition. For this conclusion to hold, there cannot be any other plausible reason for the manuscript to feature this style. Assuming that local Valencian composers did not independently invent the style is a necessary 'defender' assumption that blocks an alternative explanation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'The manuscript must have been authored by a composer trained in the Flemish musical tradition.'
Understanding the exact claim the author is trying to prove is required to find what the argument logically depends upon.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premise 1: The manuscript was found in Valencia and dated to 1420. Premise 2: It features a complex polyphony that was the hallmark of the Flemish school.
We must map how the author moves from the evidence to the conclusion to spot any logical gaps.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed statement.
The negated statement becomes: 'The complex polyphony characteristic of the Flemish school WAS independently developed by composers native to Valencia around 1420.'
The defining feature of a necessary assumption is that its negation completely destroys the original argument.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the conclusion.
If local Valencian composers independently developed this style, then the manuscript's style is no longer exclusive proof of Flemish training. The conclusion logically collapses.
Because the negated statement invalidates the conclusion, the original statement is strictly necessary for the argument to survive.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defender Pattern)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 97Soru →

Climatologist: To halt the alarming retreat of the Solaria Glacier, engineers propose installing a vast network of reflective geo-blankets over the ice during the summer months. Since these blankets reflect 90 percent of incident solar radiation, their deployment will lower the surface temperature of the glacier sufficiently to prevent further seasonal melting.

Which of the following are assumptions upon which the climatologist's argument depends? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The installation of the geo-blankets will not create a thermal insulating layer that traps geothermal heat sufficient to cause the glacier to melt.; The seasonal melting of the Solaria Glacier is not driven entirely by heat sources that are unaffected by surface solar radiation.

Cevap

The argument fundamentally depends on the assumptions that the blankets will not trap sufficient geothermal heat to cause melting, and that the melting is not entirely driven by heat sources unaffected by solar radiation.
Both correct choices serve as 'Defender' assumptions that protect the causal claim. If the blankets were to act as an insulating layer that traps enough geothermal heat to cause melting, the conclusion that the blankets prevent melting would fail. Similarly, if the glacier's melting were entirely driven by heat sources unaffected by solar radiation, then blocking solar radiation would not prevent the melting. Because the argument falls apart if either of these statements is false, both are logically necessary for the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the core structure of the argument.
Premise: Geo-blankets reflect 90% of solar radiation. Conclusion: Deploying them will lower the surface temperature enough to prevent seasonal melting.
Isolating the causal claim is essential to spot unstated gaps in the reasoning.
2
Identify vulnerabilities in the causal relationship.
The argument assumes that blocking solar radiation alone is enough to stop the melting, ignoring other potential heat sources or unintended heating side effects caused by the blankets themselves.
Necessary assumptions often function as 'Defenders' that protect an argument against potential fatal flaws.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to test the candidate assumptions.
Negating the correct options reveals that if the blankets trap geothermal heat, or if solar radiation isn't a primary driver of the melting, the conclusion logically collapses.
The Negation Technique is the definitive test for validating a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Defender Pattern and Negation Test)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 98Soru →

Match each logical argument on the left with the piece of evidence on the right that most strongly bolsters its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A software firm observed a 20% increase in productivity immediately after providing all developers with curved monitors. Management concludes the curved monitors caused the productivity boost.
Urban foxes exhibit significantly higher stress hormone levels than rural foxes. Biologists hypothesize that constant exposure to city traffic noise causes this chronic stress.
A clinical study found that individuals who consume breakfast daily have lower average cholesterol levels than those who skip breakfast. Researchers conclude that eating breakfast actively lowers cholesterol.
Traffic officials noted that intersections equipped with red-light cameras experience more rear-end collisions than intersections without them. They conclude the cameras cause these accidents by prompting abrupt braking.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The arguments logically pair with the evidence that targets their specific causal gaps: the monitor argument pairs with the evidence ruling out other workplace changes; the urban fox argument pairs with the evidence isolating noise from other city factors; the breakfast argument pairs with the evidence controlling for overall lifestyle habits; and the traffic camera argument pairs with the evidence establishing a safer baseline before installation.
Each correct match provides a piece of evidence that directly targets the logical vulnerability of the corresponding argument. They systematically strengthen the causal claims by either eliminating an alternative explanation, establishing a clear chronology to avoid selection bias, or demonstrating that the effect is strictly tied to the presence of the suspected cause.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each argument to identify the premise, the conclusion, and the logical gap.
Identified that all four arguments assume a causal relationship based on a correlation or a chronological sequence.
Understanding the flaw or assumption in an argument is required before you can identify what evidence would strengthen it.
2
Examine the tech firm argument regarding monitors and productivity.
Paired with the evidence stating no other changes occurred at the firm, as it eliminates alternative causes for the productivity spike.
Causal claims based on sequence (post hoc ergo propter hoc) are strengthened when alternate simultaneous causes are ruled out.
3
Examine the biological argument regarding foxes and urban noise.
Paired with the evidence showing quiet urban areas do not produce stressed foxes, which isolates the noise variable.
Showing that the effect disappears when the specific cause is removed (even when other background factors remain) heavily strengthens a causal claim.
4
Examine the health argument regarding breakfast and cholesterol.
Paired with the evidence showing both groups had similar exercise and fat intake routines.
Correlational studies are vulnerable to third-variable problems. Controlling for other lifestyle factors strengthens the specific correlation.
5
Examine the traffic argument regarding cameras and collisions.
Paired with the evidence showing the camera intersections were actually safer before the cameras were installed.
This rules out reverse causation or selection bias (the idea that high-collision rates caused the cameras to be placed there, rather than the cameras causing the collisions).

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening Causal Arguments by Ruling Out Alternatives and Controlling Variables
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 99Soru →

Financial Analyst: The manufacturing sector in Country X will likely experience a severe contraction this year. The global price of refined rhodium, a catalyst essential for the advanced electronics manufactured almost exclusively in Country X, has tripled in the past six months. Because manufacturers in Country X operate on very thin profit margins, they cannot absorb this cost increase without significantly raising their prices, an action that will inevitably cause a drastic drop in their sales volume.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The production of advanced electronics accounts for a large enough proportion of Country X's manufacturing sector that a drastic drop in their sales would cause a severe contraction in the sector as a whole.

Cevap

The production of advanced electronics accounts for a large enough proportion of Country X's manufacturing sector that a drastic drop in their sales would cause a severe contraction in the sector as a whole.
The argument commits a classic part-to-whole scope shift. The premises provide evidence that one specific industry—advanced electronics—will suffer a drastic drop in sales. However, the conclusion claims that the entire 'manufacturing sector' in Country X will experience a severe contraction. For this conclusion to be valid, the author must be assuming that the advanced electronics industry is significant enough to drag down the whole sector. Applying the Negation Test confirms this: if advanced electronics accounted for only a tiny fraction of the manufacturing sector, a drop in their sales would not cause the entire sector to contract, completely destroying the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument to identify the main conclusion.
Conclusion: The manufacturing sector in Country X will likely experience a severe contraction this year.
Identifying the exact scope of the conclusion is the first step in finding the logical gap.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premises: Rhodium prices tripled. Rhodium is essential for advanced electronics made in Country X. Thin margins mean prices must rise, which will cause a drastic drop in advanced electronics sales volume.
Understanding the evidence provided shows us what the author has explicitly proven.
3
Compare the scope of the premises to the scope of the conclusion to spot the logical gap.
The premises prove a drastic drop in sales for 'advanced electronics'. The conclusion makes a claim about the 'entire manufacturing sector' of Country X.
Arguments often mistakenly assume that what is true of a part is true of the whole (Composition flaw).
4
Apply the Negation Test to evaluate potential assumptions.
Negating the correct statement: 'Advanced electronics do NOT account for a large enough proportion...' If true, a drop in electronics sales would have a negligible impact, and the entire sector would NOT severely contract. The argument collapses.
A necessary assumption must destroy the argument when negated. If the argument survives the negation, the assumption was not logically necessary.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Part-to-Whole Scope Shifts and the Negation Test
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 100Soru →

Corporate Consultant: To boost overall employee productivity, our company should replace standard office chairs with standing desks. A recent occupational health study found that office workers who switched to standing desks experienced a significant decrease in chronic back pain. Furthermore, it is well established that employees who experience less overall physical discomfort are able to maintain concentration on their tasks for significantly longer periods.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The reduction in back pain experienced by standing desk users is not typically offset by an increase in other forms of physical discomfort.

Cevap

The assumption that the reduction in back pain is not offset by an increase in other forms of physical discomfort.
The argument relies on a shift from a specific benefit (reduced back pain) to a general requirement (less overall physical discomfort). For this shift to be valid, the author must assume that the specific benefit isn't canceled out by a new specific harm. By negating the correct option—assuming that other discomforts DO increase and offset the back pain reduction—the employees would no longer experience the 'less overall physical discomfort' required to increase concentration, causing the argument to fall apart.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The company should replace standard chairs with standing desks to boost overall employee productivity.
This sets the target that the premises must support.
2
Identify the premises providing support.
Standing desks decrease chronic back pain. Less 'overall' physical discomfort leads to longer concentration periods (which presumably boosts productivity).
This outlines the causal chain the author believes will occur.
3
Find the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument conflates a specific reduction (decrease in back pain) with a general state (less overall physical discomfort).
A decrease in back pain only leads to less overall physical discomfort if standing desks do not simultaneously cause other types of pain.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the correct answer candidate.
If the reduction in back pain IS offset by an increase in other forms of physical discomfort, the employees do not achieve 'less overall physical discomfort'.
Because the negated assumption destroys the link between the premises and the conclusion, it is logically necessary for the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
ÖncekiSayfa 5 / 15Sonraki
Argument Evaluation Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 5 | Examkin