Weaken

51 soru

Soru 21Soru →

Anthropologist: The discovery of ceremonial obsidian blades in the ruins of the agrarian Vaelian civilization, which flourished 3,000 years ago, proves that the Vaelians engaged in long-distance commerce. The only known geological source of this specific type of obsidian is Mount Cinder, located nearly 400 miles away from the Vaelian settlements. Given that the Vaelians were deeply tied to their farmlands and lacked the means for long-distance travel, they must have acquired these blades by trading with nomadic groups.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Geological surveys indicate that a massive prehistoric river once flowed directly from Mount Cinder to the Vaelian valley, depositing large quantities of obsidian boulders throughout the region.

Cevap

The option stating that a massive prehistoric river deposited obsidian boulders throughout the Vaelian region.
The anthropologist's argument relies on the assumption that if the Vaelians couldn't travel to the obsidian source, they must have relied on other humans (nomads) to bring it to them. The correct answer introduces a third, unconsidered possibility: natural geological forces (a prehistoric river) transported the raw material to the Vaelians' location long before they needed it. If the stones were already in their valley, no trade network was necessary, which destroys the author's conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: The Vaelians must have acquired the obsidian blades by trading with nomadic groups.
This establishes the core claim that the question asks you to undermine.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premises: (1) Obsidian blades were found in Vaelian ruins. (2) The only source of this obsidian is 400 miles away. (3) Vaelians could not travel long distances themselves.
Understanding the evidence reveals the logical gap.
3
Identify the logical gap (assumption) between the premises and the conclusion.
The anthropologist assumes that human transport (specifically trade) is the ONLY way the obsidian could cross the 400-mile distance.
Arguments are weakened by exposing and attacking their unstated assumptions.
4
Evaluate the options to find one that attacks this assumption.
The option describing a prehistoric river shows that natural geological forces, not human trade, could have moved the stones, severing the link between the premises and the conclusion.
Providing a plausible alternate explanation is the most common way to weaken a causal or explanatory argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Alternative Explanations in Argument Evaluation
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 22Soru →

Archaeologist: Excavations at the ancient city of Orazia have revealed a formidable stone perimeter wall enclosing only the city's central precinct, which housed the royal palace and primary religious structures. The extensive residential sectors, home to Orazia's general populace, were situated outside this wall and completely unfortified. Surviving state chronicles portray Orazian monarchs as deeply committed to protecting their citizenry from the frequent incursions of neighboring empires. Yet, the architectural record belies this narrative. The deliberate choice to fortify solely the administrative and religious center strongly implies that the wall's primary function was to insulate the ruling class from domestic uprisings, rather than to serve as a bulwark against foreign military threats.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: During periods of anticipated foreign military incursions, the unfortified residential sectors were routinely evacuated, and the entire populace of Orazia was granted temporary sanctuary within the provisioned central precinct.

Cevap

The statement indicating that the general populace was granted temporary sanctuary within the central precinct during foreign incursions.
The correct answer exploits a crucial assumption in the archaeologist's argument. The archaeologist assumes that a wall built solely around the central precinct indicates a lack of intent to protect the general populace from foreign threats. However, if the entire populace sought refuge inside the fortified central precinct during foreign invasions, then the wall was indeed capable of serving as a bulwark against foreign military threats for all citizens. This alternative explanation perfectly reconciles the architectural evidence with the historical chronicles, thereby completely undermining the author's conclusion that the wall was intended primarily for defense against domestic uprisings.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The wall's primary function was to protect the ruling class from domestic uprisings, rather than to defend against foreign military threats.
The conclusion is the final claim that the author attempts to prove using the architectural evidence.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
1) A stone wall enclosed only the central precinct. 2) The residential sectors were completely unfortified. 3) Historical texts claim monarchs protected citizens from foreign threats, which the author claims is contradicted by the architecture.
These are the stated facts the author relies upon to make the logical leap to the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap (assumption) between the premises and the conclusion.
The archaeologist assumes that because the residential sectors were unfortified, the general populace living there could not be protected by the central wall during an invasion.
If there is a way the central wall could protect everyone, then the architectural evidence does not contradict the historical texts, and the domestic uprising conclusion loses its foundation.
4
Evaluate the options to find the one that exploits this gap to undermine the conclusion.
The correct option reveals that the population evacuated into the central precinct during attacks.
This provides a plausible alternative explanation for the wall's design that is perfectly consistent with protecting the citizenry from foreign armies, thereby dismantling the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument Vulnerabilities (Weaken)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 23Soru →

Researcher: The hormone somatotropin stimulates growth in juvenile *Rana clamitans*. In a strictly controlled laboratory study, two groups of these frogs were observed for six months. Both groups were provided with identical diets and environmental conditions, differing only in the water's dissolved calcium concentration. The frogs in the high-calcium water exhibited growth rates 30 percent higher than those in the low-calcium water. Because both groups of frogs synthesized identical amounts of somatotropin over the study period, the dissolved calcium must directly enhance the sensitivity of the frogs' cellular growth receptors to this hormone.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: High concentrations of dissolved calcium significantly inhibit the enzymes responsible for the natural breakdown of somatotropin in the bloodstream of *Rana clamitans*.

Cevap

The statement indicating that high concentrations of dissolved calcium inhibit the enzymes responsible for the natural breakdown of somatotropin.
The argument concludes that calcium must make cellular receptors more sensitive to somatotropin because both groups synthesized identical amounts of the hormone but the high-calcium group grew more. However, this assumes that synthesis rate is the only factor determining how much hormone is available to the body. The correct answer introduces a crucial alternative mechanism: calcium prevents the biological breakdown of the hormone. If somatotropin degrades more slowly, its net concentration in the bloodstream remains higher over time. This higher sustained concentration perfectly explains the increased growth without requiring any change in receptor sensitivity, thereby destroying the argument's core assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the premises and conclusion.
Premises: High calcium leads to higher growth. Both groups synthesized identical amounts of somatotropin. Conclusion: Calcium directly enhances receptor sensitivity.
Understanding the logical core is necessary before evaluating structural weaknesses.
2
Identify the logical gap or assumption in the researcher's reasoning.
The researcher assumes that if the synthesis (production) amounts are identical, the only way for the hormone to have a greater effect is if the cellular receptors become more sensitive.
Identifying the unstated assumption reveals the argument's primary vulnerability.
3
Formulate a potential weakener based on the logical gap.
An effective weakener would provide an alternative reason why identical synthesis could lead to higher growth, such as the hormone lasting longer before degrading.
Pre-phrasing an answer helps accurately evaluate and eliminate the given options.
4
Evaluate the given options against the pre-phrased weakener.
The option regarding the inhibition of breakdown enzymes perfectly matches the alternative mechanism.
This confirms the correct option while ensuring distractors are dismissed logically.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Alternate Explanations and Unstated Assumptions
Soru 24Soru →

Consider the following argument:

Public Health Official: Last year, the city launched a comprehensive campaign to encourage drivers to wear seatbelts. The campaign drastically changed behavior: surveys confirm that the proportion of drivers in the city who regularly wear seatbelts surged from 40 percent last year to 80 percent this year. However, recent traffic reports reveal that the total number of severe injuries resulting from car accidents in the city has actually increased by 15 percent compared to last year. Clearly, wearing a seatbelt does not actually reduce a driver's risk of suffering a severe injury in a car accident.

Statement: The official's argument is actively weakened by the new finding that the total number of car accidents in the city also increased by exactly 15 percent over the past year.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False. The provided statement does not weaken the argument; rather, it actively strengthens it.
The correct answer is false because the proposed finding proves that the rate of severe injuries per accident remained identical to the previous year. If the severity rate remains static despite seatbelt usage doubling, this strongly corroborates the official's conclusion that seatbelts do not reduce the risk of severe injury. Since it strengthens the argument, the assertion that it weakens the argument is false.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the official's reasoning
The official concludes seatbelts are ineffective because absolute injury numbers rose despite increased seatbelt usage.
To identify the logical gap between the premise (absolute numbers) and the conclusion (individual risk or rate).
2
Evaluate the proposed new finding
The finding states that total accidents increased by the exact same percentage (15 percent) as total severe injuries.
To determine how this new contextual fact alters the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
3
Calculate the impact on injury rates
A parallel 15 percent increase in both accidents and injuries means the proportion of accidents resulting in severe injury remained perfectly static.
To translate absolute numbers back into the risk/rate referenced in the conclusion.
4
Determine the logical effect on the argument
A static injury rate in a population where seatbelt usage doubled proves the seatbelts had no statistical impact, thereby supporting the official's claim.
To accurately conclude that the finding strengthens the argument, meaning the statement that it 'weakens' the argument is false.

Anahtar Kavram

Understanding the difference between absolute numerical totals and proportional rates, and recognizing how explaining a numerical increase can inadvertently strengthen an argument's conclusion.
Soru 25Soru →

Epidemiologist: To evaluate the long-term safety of the new dietary supplement Novagen, researchers conducted a comprehensive five-year study. They tracked 5,000 individuals who consumed Novagen daily for the entire five-year period and compared them to a control group of 5,000 individuals who never consumed it. The researchers ensured both groups were strictly matched for age, diet, exercise habits, and initial cardiovascular health. The data shows that the individuals who consumed Novagen daily for five years had a 40 percent lower incidence of cardiovascular disease than the control group. This conclusively demonstrates that long-term, daily consumption of Novagen provides significant protection against cardiovascular disease.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the epidemiologist’s argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Individuals who develop any early signs of cardiovascular disease are universally instructed by their doctors to immediately cease taking all non-essential dietary supplements, including Novagen.

Cevap

The statement indicating that individuals are instructed to stop taking supplements if they develop early signs of cardiovascular disease.
The argument concludes that Novagen provides protection based on the lower incidence of disease in the group that completed the five-year regimen. However, if doctors instruct anyone showing early signs of the disease to stop taking the supplement, those individuals drop out of the experimental group. This creates a massive survivor bias: the group that successfully consumed the supplement for five years artificially excludes those who fell ill. This provides an alternative explanation for their lower disease rate and destroys the causal claim.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and the supporting premises.
Conclusion: Novagen provides long-term protection against cardiovascular disease. Premise: A study showed a 40% lower disease incidence in people who consumed Novagen daily for 5 years compared to a strictly matched control group.
Deconstructing the argument's structure is the necessary first step to finding its logical vulnerabilities.
2
Analyze the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that the correlation (taking Novagen for 5 years correlates with less disease) implies a specific causal direction (Novagen caused the health). It ignores the possibility of sample selection bias within the experimental group.
Identifying unstated assumptions reveals precisely how the argument can be weakened.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that exploits this gap by providing an alternative explanation.
The correct option reveals that people who get sick are told to stop taking the supplement, meaning they drop out of the '5-year daily user' group. This guarantees the final group will have an artificially low disease rate, regardless of the supplement's actual efficacy.
An alternate explanation for the premise's data effectively severs the causal link to the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying alternate causes and sample selection bias (Survivor Bias)
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 26Soru →

Below are four excerpts from public policy and economic debates. For each argument on the left, identify the single factual statement on the right that, if true, would pose the most severe logical challenge to the speaker's conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Mayor: Following the implementation of our new enterprise zone policies, which offer tax abatements to manufacturing firms relocating to the city, the commercial vacancy rate in the industrial district plummeted. It is evident that the tax abatements successfully stimulated the local industrial real estate market.
Transit Advocate: Constructing a dedicated bus rapid transit (BRT) lane along the main northern arterial road will certainly alleviate current traffic bottlenecks. The BRT lane will run directly parallel to the most congested route, offering an efficient commuting alternative for the 40,000 drivers who use that road daily.
Financial Advisor: Data from the past decade shows that start-up tech companies are twice as likely to fold within their first three years as start-up hospitality businesses. Therefore, investors seeking to minimize their overall financial exposure should prioritize funding hospitality start-ups over tech start-ups.
Environmental Critic: The municipal ban on single-use plastic bags has clearly failed to achieve its primary goal of reducing the total amount of non-biodegradable waste generated by residents. According to the city's own sanitation records, the total tonnage of non-biodegradable waste collected last year was 5% higher than the year before the ban took effect.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Mayor matches with the port modernization; Transit Advocate matches with tradespeople needing vehicles; Financial Advisor matches with asset liquidation differences; Environmental Critic matches with municipal boundary expansion.
Each correct pairing links a specific logical flaw in the speaker's argument to a factual statement that perfectly exploits that gap. The Mayor's causal flaw is attacked by an alternate cause (the port). The Transit Advocate's assumption of feasibility is attacked by a practical barrier (need to haul equipment). The Financial Advisor's equivocation is attacked by separating failure rate from financial loss magnitude. The Environmental Critic's use of raw numbers is attacked by shifting the baseline population.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Mayor's argument.
Identified a causal claim: Tax abatements caused the drop in vacancy rates.
To find the weak point, which in causal arguments is often an alternate explanation for the observed effect.
2
Match the Mayor's argument to a weakening statement.
Matched with the port modernization statement.
The port modernization provides a compelling alternate cause for the industrial real estate boom, directly undermining the conclusion that tax abatements were responsible.
3
Analyze the Transit Advocate's argument.
Identified a practical assumption: The 40,000 drivers can and will switch to the new bus lane.
To weaken a proposed solution, one must show why it is unfeasible or why the intended users cannot adopt it.
4
Match the Transit Advocate's argument to a weakening statement.
Matched with the tradespeople statement.
If 80% of the drivers require their vehicles for bulky equipment, they cannot switch to a bus, rendering the proposed solution ineffective.
5
Analyze the Financial Advisor's argument.
Identified a gap in terminology: Equating failure rate with total financial exposure.
To weaken arguments that shift terms between the premise and conclusion, find evidence that distinguishes the two concepts.
6
Match the Financial Advisor's argument to a weakening statement.
Matched with the asset liquidation statement.
This shows that a higher failure rate does not equate to higher financial exposure, as tech failures allow for capital recovery while hospitality failures do not.
7
Analyze the Environmental Critic's argument.
Identified a numbers vs. proportions flaw: Using a total volume increase to claim a per-capita efficiency program failed.
To weaken claims relying on total raw numbers to judge a rate or proportion, find a factor that skews the baseline, such as population growth.
8
Match the Environmental Critic's argument to a weakening statement.
Matched with the municipal boundaries statement.
A 20% population increase easily accounts for a 5% increase in total waste, indicating the per-capita waste actually decreased, meaning the ban likely succeeded.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying and exploiting specific structural flaws in logical arguments, including causal leaps, unstated assumptions of feasibility, term equivocation, and number vs. percentage errors.
Soru 27Soru →

Analyze the four arguments below. Match each argument (Left) to the specific piece of new evidence (Right) that most severely weakens its conclusion by exposing its underlying logical flaw.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A recent study found that employees who take frequent short walks during the workday report significantly lower levels of stress. Therefore, to decrease overall employee stress, the corporation should mandate daily short walks for all staff.
The number of traffic accidents involving electric scooters in the city has tripled this year compared to last year. Clearly, riding an electric scooter has become significantly more dangerous for the individual rider.
A survey of readers of 'Peak Athletics' magazine revealed that 80% of respondents prefer plant-based protein supplements over whey protein. Thus, a vast majority of the general athletic population is shifting toward plant-based diets.
The municipal government can either expand the downtown highway system or suffer from continuously worsening traffic congestion. Since expanding the highway would completely exhaust the municipal budget, the city will inevitably suffer from worsening traffic.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 (stress) matches with the evidence regarding high-pressure project assignments. Argument 2 (scooters) matches with the evidence of the sixfold increase in total miles traveled. Argument 3 (survey) matches with the evidence of subscription bias among plant-based consumers. Argument 4 (traffic) matches with the evidence regarding neighboring municipalities optimizing bus networks.
Each argument contains a distinct, classic logical flaw. The correct counter-evidence directly exploits the specific gap in that argument. The workplace stress argument assumes causality from a correlation, which is weakened by showing reverse causality. The scooter argument confuses absolute numbers with proportional rates, which is weakened by a massive increase in total riders. The magazine survey argument relies on an unrepresentative sample, which is weakened by showing the sample is inherently biased. The traffic argument restricts the possibilities to a false dilemma, which is weakened by demonstrating a successful alternative option.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the workplace stress argument to identify its logical gap.
The argument relies on a correlation-to-causation jump, assuming walks cause reduced stress rather than the reverse.
Identifying the causal flaw directs you to look for evidence that suggests reverse causation or a third variable.
2
Select the evidence that attacks the causal flaw in the stress argument.
The evidence stating highly stressed employees are prohibited from taking breaks perfectly exploits this gap.
It shows that stress levels determine the ability to walk, completely undermining the recommendation to mandate walks to cure stress.
3
Evaluate the electric scooter argument's reasoning.
The argument commits a numbers-to-percentages error, assuming an increase in total accidents means an increase in individual risk (rate).
To weaken a numbers-to-rates argument, you must find evidence altering the baseline or total population.
4
Select the evidence that addresses the baseline for the scooter argument.
The evidence regarding the sixfold increase in total scooter miles directly attacks this flaw.
If use increased 6x but accidents only increased 3x, the danger per rider has actually dropped, destroying the conclusion.
5
Examine the survey argument and the traffic argument.
The survey argument relies on an unrepresentative sample, while the traffic argument relies on a false dilemma (only two options).
Identifying these specific structural flaws makes the remaining matches clear.
6
Match the remaining arguments to their respective weakeners.
The survey argument matches the evidence showing magazine subscribers are disproportionately plant-based (exposing the sample bias). The traffic argument matches the evidence showing bus optimization as a third option (breaking the false dilemma).
Each piece of evidence surgically targets the distinct vulnerability of its paired argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying and exploiting specific structural vulnerabilities (flaws) in logical arguments.
Soru 28Soru →

Agronomist: The widespread adoption of the genetically modified "Xertex-wheat" in the arid Zephyr Valley is a triumph of biological engineering. Over the five years since farmers switched entirely to Xertex-wheat—maintaining the exact same total acreage of wheat cultivation and utilizing the identical irrigation infrastructure—the annual volume of irrigation water required to prevent crop failure has decreased by 30%. Because rainfall and temperatures have remained strictly constant over the last decade, this reduction conclusively demonstrates that an individual Xertex-wheat plant intrinsically requires significantly less water to survive than an individual plant of the traditional wheat varieties.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Due to its highly expansive root system, Xertex-wheat must be planted at a density of approximately half as many plants per acre as traditional wheat varieties.

Cevap

The statement that Xertex-wheat must be planted at half the density of traditional wheat varieties.
The argument commits a flaw of division by assuming that a reduction in total water usage across a fixed acreage necessarily implies a reduction in water usage per individual plant. The correct answer exploits this by stating that Xertex-wheat requires planting at half the density of traditional wheat. If there are only half as many plants on the same acreage, but they are using 70% of the original water volume, then each individual plant is actually consuming considerably more water than before. This definitively disproves the agronomist's conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that an INDIVIDUAL Xertex-wheat plant intrinsically requires significantly less water than an INDIVIDUAL traditional wheat plant.
This establishes the precise scope of the claim being evaluated.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The total volume of water required per acre decreased by 30%, while total acreage, irrigation infrastructure, and weather remained constant.
Understanding the evidence highlights the gap between the premise metrics and the conclusion metrics.
3
Analyze the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The agronomist shifts from an observation about an entire group (water per acre) to a claim about individual members of that group (water per plant). This assumes the number of plants per acre remained constant.
Identifying this part-to-whole / density shift is required to find the correct weakener.
4
Evaluate the options to find the one that exploits this gap.
The correct option shows that there are 50% fewer plants per acre. Mathematically, 50% of the plants using 70% of the water means individual consumption went UP, directly refuting the conclusion.
This actively breaks the logical link necessary for the conclusion to be drawn from the premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Fallacy of Division / Compositional Logic (Whole vs. Part)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 29Soru →

Financial Analyst: Five years ago, the national government eliminated subsidies for domestic solar panel manufacturers. Since then, the total revenue of the domestic solar industry has increased by 40 percent. Conversely, the domestic wind turbine manufacturing sector, which retained its government subsidies, saw only a 5 percent increase in total revenue over the same period. Clearly, in the renewable energy sector, government subsidies stifle revenue growth rather than encourage it.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the financial analyst's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Five years ago, the government eliminated solar subsidies specifically because independent market forecasts projected that the domestic solar industry's revenue would soon grow by at least 40 percent due to surging global demand.

Cevap

The statement indicating that the government eliminated solar subsidies because forecasts already projected a 40 percent revenue growth due to global demand.
The analyst's argument relies on a classic causal assumption: because the elimination of subsidies preceded the massive revenue growth in the solar sector, the policy change must have caused that growth. The correct answer devastatingly weakens this by establishing reverse causation. If the government removed the subsidies because they already knew the industry's revenue was about to skyrocket due to independent global demand, then the lack of subsidies did not cause the growth. The growth was going to happen anyway, entirely invalidating the analyst's conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core components.
Premise 1: Solar lost subsidies and revenue grew 40%. Premise 2: Wind kept subsidies and revenue grew 5%. Conclusion: Subsidies stifle revenue growth.
Understanding the exact structural relationship between the evidence and the conclusion is required to evaluate logical gaps.
2
Analyze the reasoning flaw.
The analyst observes a correlation between the removal of subsidies and high revenue growth, and concludes a direct causal relationship (removal caused growth).
Identifying the assumption of causality (A caused B) highlights potential vulnerabilities, such as alternate causes or reverse causation.
3
Evaluate the options for the one that best exploits this flaw.
The correct answer demonstrates that the anticipated growth (B) actually caused the policy change (A), completely undermining the analyst's causal arrow.
An effective weakener often shows that the effect was already guaranteed to happen independently of the proposed cause.

Anahtar Kavram

Weakening causal arguments by introducing reverse causation or demonstrating that an alternate factor guaranteed the outcome.
Soru 30Soru →

Neurobiologist: In a recent experiment, laboratory mice whose daily diets were supplemented with the artificial sweetener Zytrol performed significantly worse on spatial memory tasks than a group of mice whose diets were supplemented with an equal caloric amount of natural sucrose. Therefore, we can conclude that the consumption of Zytrol actively impairs spatial memory function.

Statement: The newly discovered fact that mice fed a standard baseline diet containing neither Zytrol nor sucrose performed identically on the spatial memory tasks to the mice fed Zytrol significantly weakens the neurobiologist's argument.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement accurately identifies a classic weakening scenario involving experimental baselines. The neurobiologist's argument relies on a flawed comparison, implicitly assuming the sucrose group represents normal cognitive function. By revealing that a truly neutral baseline yields the exact same results as the Zytrol group, the new evidence shifts the causal arrow, indicating that sucrose improves memory rather than Zytrol impairing it. This destroys the argument's core causal claim, making the statement definitively true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure to isolate the premise and conclusion.
Premise: Zytrol-fed mice performed worse than sucrose-fed mice. Conclusion: Zytrol actively impairs memory.
Identifying the core components of the argument is necessary to spot the logical gap.
2
Identify the logical flaw in the neurobiologist's reasoning.
The argument lacks a proper neutral control group, conflating a relative difference (worse than sucrose) with an absolute decline (active impairment).
Recognizing the flawed comparison reveals how the argument is vulnerable to attack.
3
Assess the logical impact of the new statement provided in the prompt.
The statement introduces a neutral baseline group that performs identically to the Zytrol group, proving Zytrol causes no deviation from normal function.
We must evaluate whether this new information exploits the logical gap identified in Step 2.
4
Determine if the new statement weakens the argument.
Yes. It provides an alternative cause for the performance gap (sucrose enhances memory, Zytrol does nothing), thereby severely weakening the original claim.
Concluding the evaluation of the statement's effect on the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Weaken
Soru 31Soru →

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

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

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

Adım Adım Çözüm

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

Anahtar Kavram

Causal Reasoning and Alternate Explanations
Soru 32Soru →

Match each flawed argument with the specific piece of counter-evidence that most effectively undermines its conclusion by exposing its underlying logical vulnerability.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Internal audits reveal that departments utilizing the 'Matrix' management protocol boast unusually high employee retention. Thus, enforcing the Matrix protocol across all remaining departments will surely solve our ongoing staffing retention crisis.
In the year following the introduction of mandatory safety visors at the extraction site, reported ocular injuries went up by 15 percent. Paradoxically, the introduction of the visor mandate has increased the physical hazards faced by workers.
To close the municipal revenue gap, the mayor must either slash the education budget or double the downtown parking tariffs. Since slashing education would alienate key voters, the mayor has no viable option but to increase the parking tariffs.
Victorian-era craftsmanship was far more resilient than contemporary building practices. This is proven by the fact that Victorian buildings surviving today show significantly less structural degradation than typical structures erected in the past five years.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Matrix protocol argument pairs with the corporate bylaws restriction (reverse causation). The safety visors argument pairs with the absorption of regional mines (numbers vs. rates). The municipal deficit argument pairs with the appellate court ruling (false dilemma). The Victorian architecture argument pairs with the premium imported materials (survivor bias).
The correct matches require identifying the specific logical flaw in each argument and selecting the counter-evidence that targets that exact flaw. The argument regarding the Matrix protocol exhibits a correlation-to-causation error; it is weakened by evidence of reverse causation. The argument regarding safety visors commits a numbers-versus-percentages flaw; it is weakened by evidence that the total population expanded, accounting for the raw numerical increase. The municipal deficit argument relies on a false dilemma; it is weakened by the introduction of a viable third alternative. The Victorian architecture argument relies on an unrepresentative sample; it is weakened by evidence that the surviving structures were exceptionally built outliers.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Matrix protocol argument to identify its logical gap.
Identified a correlation-to-causation flaw. The argument assumes the protocol causes the retention.
To find a weakener, one must determine if the causal direction could be reversed or if a third variable exists.
2
Scan the counter-evidence for a fact that reverses the causal arrow.
The corporate bylaws rule shows that stability is required before the protocol is adopted, reversing the causation.
This directly targets the assumption that implementing the protocol will magically fix unstable departments.
3
Analyze the safety visor argument to identify its logical gap.
Identified a numbers-versus-percentages flaw. An increase in total injuries does not necessarily mean the rate of injury (danger) increased.
To weaken a claim about increased danger based solely on raw numbers, look for an increase in the overall population size.
4
Scan the counter-evidence for an increase in population size.
The fact about absorbing the labor force of three shuttered mines accounts for the raw increase in injuries.
A vastly larger workforce naturally produces more total injuries even if the site is safer per capita.
5
Analyze the municipal deficit argument for its logical gap.
Identified a false dilemma flaw. The argument limits the options to cutting education or raising parking tariffs.
To weaken a false dilemma, one must find a viable third alternative that the author ignored.
6
Locate a third alternative among the counter-evidence.
The appellate court ruling allowing a special fee on developers provides a distinct third option.
This proves the mayor is not forced to choose between the two original, undesirable options.
7
Analyze the Victorian architecture argument for its logical gap.
Identified a sampling flaw (survivor bias). The argument inappropriately compares average modern homes to surviving historical homes.
To weaken a conclusion based on a biased sample, one must show that the sample is unrepresentative of the whole.
8
Find the counter-evidence demonstrating the sample is unrepresentative.
The fact that surviving structures were built by magnates with rare materials proves they are outliers.
This shows that the surviving homes cannot be used to judge the quality of typical Victorian construction.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying and exploiting specific logical flaws (causal inversion, number vs. proportion, false dilemma, unrepresentative sample) to successfully undermine arguments.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 33Soru →

Argument:
University Administrator: Last year, we introduced a mandatory study skills workshop for all first-year students on academic probation. This year, the dropout rate among first-year students on academic probation has decreased by 15%. Therefore, the workshop has been effective in helping struggling students stay in school.

Statement:
If true, the fact that the university significantly lowered the academic requirements needed to avoid expulsion this year actively weakens the administrator's argument.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The new fact introduces an alternative explanation for the observed phenomenon. By showing that administrative leniency could account for the 15% drop in the expulsion rate, the evidence connecting the workshop to the positive outcome is severely undermined, thus weakening the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the argument.
Conclusion: The workshop is effective in helping students stay in school. Premise: The dropout rate decreased by 15% after the workshop was introduced.
Understanding the core structure of the argument is necessary to evaluate its logical vulnerability.
2
Determine the logical gap or assumption in the argument.
The argument assumes that the workshop (and not some other unstated factor) caused the decrease in the dropout rate.
Identifying causal assumptions highlights exactly how the argument can be weakened.
3
Evaluate the impact of the new fact on the logical gap.
The new fact provides an alternative cause for the lowered dropout rate (lowered expulsion requirements).
If an alternative cause is responsible for the outcome, the original conclusion is weakened.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Alternative Causes
Soru 34Soru →

Medical Researcher: We recently concluded a six-month clinical trial of Cardioxil, a new medication for elevated blood pressure. Over the course of the trial, 75 percent of the participants experienced a significant decrease in their blood pressure. Furthermore, among the participants who experienced this decrease, the only reported side effect was occasional mild dizziness. Therefore, Cardioxil is highly effective at lowering blood pressure and presents no serious health risks to those who use it.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Participants in the trial who did not experience a decrease in blood pressure suffered severe, life-threatening organ damage caused by Cardioxil.

Cevap

The option stating that participants who did not experience a decrease in blood pressure suffered severe, life-threatening organ damage.
The argument concludes that Cardioxil presents no serious health risks based solely on the side effects reported by the 75% of participants who experienced a decrease in blood pressure. This creates a critical logical gap by completely ignoring the side effects experienced by the remaining 25% of participants. The correct answer exploits this scope limitation by introducing new evidence that this omitted group suffered catastrophic, life-threatening organ damage. This directly targets the reasoning gap and demolishes the conclusion that the medication presents no serious health risks to its users.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and the supporting premises of the argument.
Conclusion: Cardioxil is highly effective and presents no serious health risks. Premises: 75% experienced a decrease in blood pressure, and among those 75%, the only side effect was mild dizziness.
Deconstructing the argument is essential to finding the logical gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
2
Analyze the scope of the evidence provided in the premises.
The safety data provided is explicitly limited only to the 75% of participants who experienced a decrease in blood pressure.
Identifying limiting modifiers (like 'among the participants who...') often reveals the exact vulnerability in the reasoning.
3
Identify the logical gap in the researcher's reasoning.
The researcher generalizes that the drug is safe for all users based only on the subset of users for whom the drug was effective. The side effects for the other 25% are completely unaccounted for.
The correct answer to a Weaken question will typically exploit this exact gap by introducing new information about the ignored subset.
4
Evaluate the options to find the one that attacks this specific gap.
The correct option explicitly states that the remaining 25% suffered severe organ damage, directly falsifying the conclusion that there are no serious health risks.
This introduces new evidence that directly targets and destroys the argument's vulnerability without contradicting the original premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Scope Shifts and Selection Bias in Evidence
Soru 35Soru →

Read the following argument carefully:

Historians recently discovered that the sudden collapse of the prosperous Toralian trade network in the 12th century coincided precisely with a massive volcanic eruption. Because the eruption covered the Toralian region's primary agricultural centers in thick ash, researchers conclude that the eruption caused the trade network's collapse by devastating the local food supply.

Evaluate the following statement:

The newly uncovered historical record showing that a neighboring civilization—which was completely spared from the volcanic ash fall—maintained a thriving, uninterrupted trade network throughout the entire 12th century actively weakens the researchers' conclusion.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The statement is False because the newly presented evidence strengthens, rather than weakens, the causal argument.
The statement is false because the new historical evidence demonstrates a scenario where the absence of the proposed cause (volcanic ash) is correlated with the absence of the effect (trade network collapse). In causal logic, this functions as a control case that strengthens the conclusion. Since the evidence strengthens the argument, the assertion that it 'actively weakens' the conclusion is false.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the original argument to identify the premises and the exact conclusion.
Premise: Eruption coincided with collapse and covered agricultural centers in ash. Conclusion: The eruption caused the trade network's collapse.
Understanding the core causal claim is necessary before evaluating how new evidence impacts it.
2
Analyze the nature of the newly uncovered historical record provided in the statement.
The new evidence presents a scenario where the cause is absent (no volcanic ash fall) and the effect is absent (the trade network did not collapse, but remained thriving).
Accurately summarizing the new evidence ensures it is compared correctly against the original causal relationship.
3
Determine the logical impact of this 'no cause -> no effect' scenario on the original causal claim.
The evidence acts as a control group, ruling out the possibility that a broader regional factor (like a widespread economic depression or general climate shift) caused the collapse, thereby supporting the conclusion that the ash was the specific culprit.
In formal logical reasoning, demonstrating that the absence of a cause correlates with the absence of an effect strengthens a causal argument.
4
Evaluate the accuracy of the final statement based on the logical impact.
Because the evidence strengthens the argument, the statement claiming that it 'actively weakens' the conclusion is mathematically and logically false.
This confirms the final truth value of the provided statement.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Causal Arguments (Strengthen vs. Weaken)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 36Soru →

Transportation Analyst: Last year, the city implemented a variable congestion charge for vehicles entering the central business district (CBD) during peak hours. The stated goal was to reduce the total amount of time commuters spend stuck in traffic citywide. Since the charge was introduced, the average speed of vehicles traveling within the CBD during peak hours has increased by 20 percent, and the number of vehicles entering the CBD has dropped by 30,000 per day. Therefore, the congestion charge has successfully achieved its goal.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the transportation analyst's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: In order to avoid the new charge, tens of thousands of commuters now take circuitous routes on smaller suburban roads, causing severe citywide gridlock that has significantly increased average daily commute times.

Cevap

The option stating that commuters now take circuitous routes on suburban roads, causing severe gridlock and increasing average commute times.
The correct answer directly attacks the core assumption of the argument by showing that localized improvements (less traffic in the CBD) came at the expense of the larger system (suburban roads). By demonstrating that overall commute times actually increased, it destroys the conclusion that the policy achieved its goal of reducing citywide traffic time.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the congestion charge successfully achieved its goal of reducing the total amount of time commuters spend stuck in traffic citywide.
Understanding the exact scope of the conclusion is required to evaluate what would undermine it.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premises state that inside the CBD, average speeds have increased and the number of vehicles has dropped.
Identifying the premises reveals the evidence the author relies upon.
3
Find the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The gap is the assumption that reduced traffic specifically within the CBD directly translates to reduced traffic time citywide.
This is a scope shift (part-to-whole flaw). Improvements in one specific zone do not guarantee citywide improvements.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that exploits this gap.
The correct option shows that avoiding the CBD shifted the traffic to suburban roads, worsening overall commute times citywide.
This directly severs the link between the premise (CBD improved) and the conclusion (citywide traffic improved).

Anahtar Kavram

Scope Shift (Part-to-Whole) and Alternate Effects
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 37Soru →

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 38Soru →

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 39Soru →

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 40Soru →

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
ÖncekiSayfa 2 / 3Sonraki