Argument Structure and Method

190 soru

Soru 181Soru →

Read the following dialogue and match each proposition to the correct description of the speakers' stances based strictly on the text.

Director Vance: We must actively de-orbit the defunct Helios-4 satellite. Although it currently poses no immediate threat to our communications arrays, its decaying orbit guarantees it will eventually re-enter the atmosphere. Without a controlled de-orbit, large debris might survive and strike populated areas. The potential harm of an uncontrolled re-entry is a risk we cannot ethically accept, and it far outweighs the operational risks of a retrieval mission.

Engineer Cho: I agree that Helios-4 will eventually re-enter the atmosphere. However, the risk of debris from this specific satellite surviving re-entry is statistically negligible. Furthermore, actively de-orbiting it would require launching a retrieval vehicle. That launch creates a significant immediate risk of collision with active satellites—a far greater hazard than an uncontrolled re-entry decades from now.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The Helios-4 satellite will eventually re-enter the Earth's atmosphere.
The risk of debris from Helios-4 surviving an uncontrolled re-entry is significant enough to justify taking action.
The operational hazards associated with launching a retrieval vehicle are greater than the risks of allowing Helios-4 to undergo an uncontrolled re-entry.
The financial cost of a retrieval mission makes actively de-orbiting Helios-4 impractical.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Proposition 1 matches 'Both Agree'; Proposition 2 matches 'Vance Agrees, Cho Disagrees'; Proposition 3 matches 'Cho Agrees, Vance Disagrees'; Proposition 4 matches 'Neither has a stated position'.
The correct pairings accurately reflect the explicit areas of agreement, the precise points of factual and evaluative disagreement, and the boundaries of the arguments presented in the text.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first proposition regarding the eventual atmospheric re-entry of Helios-4.
Matches 'Both Agree'.
Vance states the decaying orbit guarantees re-entry, and Cho explicitly begins by agreeing with this exact point.
2
Analyze the second proposition regarding the risk of debris surviving to justify action.
Matches 'Vance Agrees, Cho Disagrees'.
Vance argues large debris might survive and poses an unacceptable risk, whereas Cho argues the risk of debris surviving is 'statistically negligible'.
3
Analyze the third proposition comparing the operational hazards of retrieval versus uncontrolled re-entry.
Matches 'Cho Agrees, Vance Disagrees'.
Cho asserts that the launch creates a 'far greater hazard' than uncontrolled re-entry. Vance explicitly claims the opposite, that the harm of uncontrolled re-entry 'far outweighs the operational risks'.
4
Analyze the fourth proposition regarding the financial cost of the mission.
Matches 'Neither has a stated position'.
The dialogue focuses strictly on safety, ethics, and physical hazards. No financial or economic factors are mentioned by either speaker.

Anahtar Kavram

Two-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)
Soru 182Soru →

Anthropologist: Social media platforms are deliberately engineered to algorithmically amplify emotionally charged language, and it is well documented that emotional rhetoric inherently commands greater cognitive attention than neutral discourse. Because of this dynamic, digital interaction spaces inevitably skew public perception toward ideological extremes. Consequently, researchers who rely on analyzing digital discourse to gauge genuine societal consensus are fundamentally misguided.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the anthropologist's argument by the statement that digital interaction spaces inevitably skew public perception toward ideological extremes?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It functions as a subsidiary conclusion that is supported by claims regarding algorithmic engineering and cognitive attention, and which is used to justify the argument's main conclusion.

Cevap

The statement functions as a subsidiary conclusion supported by claims regarding algorithmic engineering and cognitive attention, and is used to justify the argument's main conclusion.
The argument utilizes a layered logical structure. The first sentence establishes two basic premises regarding algorithmic design and human attention. The indicator 'Because of this dynamic' shows that the target statement is a conclusion drawn from those premises. The subsequent indicator 'Consequently' shows that the target statement is then used to support the final assertion that researchers' methods are misguided. Therefore, the target statement operates perfectly as an intermediate, or subsidiary, conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is that researchers who rely on analyzing digital discourse to gauge genuine societal consensus are fundamentally misguided.
This is the final takeaway the author wants to prove, indicated by 'Consequently'.
2
Analyze the structural role of the targeted statement.
The target statement ('digital interaction spaces inevitably skew public perception toward ideological extremes') is derived from earlier facts.
The phrase 'Because of this dynamic' links the target statement logically to the previous facts about algorithms and attention, proving it is a conclusion.
3
Determine the target statement's relationship to the main conclusion.
The target statement acts as a premise supporting the main conclusion.
Because it is supported by premises and in turn supports the final conclusion, its exact logical role is a subsidiary (or intermediate) conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 183Soru →

Review the dialogue below regarding conservation science. Then, match each proposition on the left to the correct description of the speakers' stances on the right, based strictly on the information provided in the text.

Dr. Lin: Reviving extinct species like the thylacine is an indefensible allocation of scientific resources. Such initiatives provide no tangible benefit to currently living ecosystems, and they siphon capital away from habitat protection, which remains a fundamentally important pillar of biodiversity maintenance.

Dr. Thorne: I concede that habitat protection is a fundamentally important pillar, but your assessment ignores the technological externalities. The advanced genomic tools refined during de-extinction efforts are actively being repurposed to restore genetic diversity in endangered extant populations. Consequently, underwriting de-extinction research qualifies as a sound conservation practice.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

De-extinction initiatives produce no practical advantages for currently existing ecosystems.
The protection of existing habitats is a fundamentally important pillar of biodiversity maintenance.
Allocating capital to de-extinction research represents a sound conservation practice.
The primary motivation for scientists working on de-extinction is the preservation of extant endangered populations.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches are:
1. 'De-extinction initiatives produce no practical advantages...' maps to 'Dr. Lin agrees, but Dr. Thorne disagrees'.
2. 'The protection of existing habitats is a fundamentally important pillar...' maps to 'Both Dr. Lin and Dr. Thorne agree'.
3. 'Allocating capital to de-extinction research represents a sound conservation practice' maps to 'Dr. Thorne agrees, but Dr. Lin disagrees'.
4. 'The primary motivation for scientists...' maps to 'Neither speaker's explicit stance can be determined from the text'.
In Logical Reasoning dialogues, speakers often share background premises while disagreeing on conclusions or specific applications. Here, both explicitly agree on the importance of habitat protection. They disagree on the practical benefits of de-extinction for living ecosystems and, consequently, its validity as a conservation practice. Neither discusses the subjective motivations of the researchers.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Dr. Lin's core argument and premises.
Lin believes de-extinction is indefensible, has zero practical benefit to living ecosystems, and drains funds from habitat protection, which Lin views as fundamental.
Establishing the first speaker's exact commitments is necessary to evaluate the propositions.
2
Analyze Dr. Thorne's core argument and points of intersection.
Thorne concedes habitat protection is fundamental (agreement point), but argues de-extinction yields tools for living endangered populations (disagreement on benefits), making it a sound practice (disagreement on defensibility).
Identifying where the second speaker concedes, counters, or ignores the first speaker's points isolates the points at issue.
3
Evaluate each proposition against the established stances.
Proposition 1 maps to Lin agreeing and Thorne disagreeing. Proposition 2 is a shared premise. Proposition 3 is Thorne's main conclusion, which Lin rejects. Proposition 4 introduces outside information (scientists' internal motivations) not addressed by either.
Strict text-based matching ensures no outside assumptions are applied.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Points of Agreement and Disagreement in Dialogues
Soru 184Soru →

Read the following dialogue.

Agronomist: The widespread adoption of indoor vertical farming is essential if we are to achieve global food security in the coming decades. By isolating crops from unpredictable weather patterns and drastically reducing water consumption, vertical farms can guarantee consistent harvests year-round, effectively insulating our food supply from the devastating agricultural impacts of climate change.

Economist: There is no denying that vertical farming is highly efficient in its use of land and water. However, its immense electricity requirements for artificial lighting and climate control make it financially unsustainable on a global scale. We cannot build a secure global food supply on a system that is so uniquely vulnerable to energy market shocks.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between the agronomist and the economist?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Whether vertical farming can serve as a viable foundation for achieving global food security.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating 'Whether vertical farming can serve as a viable foundation for achieving global food security.'
The correct option perfectly captures the core disagreement. The agronomist argues that vertical farming is 'essential if we are to achieve global food security.' Therefore, the agronomist would answer 'Yes' to this proposition. The economist argues that due to its energy requirements and financial unsustainability, 'We cannot build a secure global food supply on [this] system.' Therefore, the economist would answer 'No' to this proposition. Because they hold mutually exclusive positions on this exact statement, it is the point at issue.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Agronomist's argument to determine their main conclusion.
The Agronomist concludes that vertical farming is essential for achieving global food security.
Identifying the primary claim sets up the first half of the potential disagreement.
2
Analyze the Economist's argument to determine their main conclusion.
The Economist concludes that vertical farming cannot serve as the basis for a secure global food supply.
Identifying the respondent's primary claim reveals how they are reacting to the first speaker.
3
Compare the two conclusions to find the precise point of overlap and conflict.
The Agronomist says vertical farming achieves food security; the Economist says it cannot build a secure food supply.
The correct answer must be a proposition that one speaker would say 'yes' to, and the other would say 'no' to.
4
Evaluate each option against the 'Yes/No' test.
Only the statement regarding whether vertical farming is a viable foundation for global food security passes the test (Agronomist: Yes; Economist: No).
Options where one speaker's opinion is unknown, or where both agree, must be eliminated.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the Point at Issue in a Two-Speaker Dialogue
Soru 185Soru →

Director Thorne: The city's initiative to replace all aging streetlights with high-intensity LED fixtures has been a resounding success. The new LEDs have cut our municipal energy consumption for street lighting by 40 percent. Furthermore, their superior brightness has dramatically improved pedestrian safety in our commercial districts.

Traffic Commissioner Vane: I concede that the energy savings are substantial. However, the harsh glare produced by these specific high-intensity fixtures severely impairs the night vision of approaching drivers. Because this makes it significantly harder for drivers to spot people stepping into crosswalks, the new fixtures have ultimately made pedestrians less safe in those districts.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between Director Thorne and Traffic Commissioner Vane?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The new high-intensity LED fixtures have improved the safety of pedestrians in commercial districts.

Cevap

The new high-intensity LED fixtures have improved the safety of pedestrians in commercial districts.
The correct answer accurately captures the core disagreement by framing it as a statement about the LED fixtures' impact on pedestrian safety. Director Thorne would agree with this statement ('dramatically improved pedestrian safety'), while Traffic Commissioner Vane would fiercely disagree ('ultimately made pedestrians less safe').

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Speaker 1's (Director Thorne's) core claims.
Thorne claims the LED initiative is a success, citing two specific outcomes: a 40% reduction in energy consumption and dramatically improved pedestrian safety due to superior brightness.
Identifying the explicit assertions made by the first speaker establishes the baseline for finding the disagreement.
2
Analyze Speaker 2's (Traffic Commissioner Vane's) core claims and compare them to Speaker 1's claims.
Vane agrees with the energy savings claim ('I concede...'). However, Vane counters the safety claim by arguing that the glare impairs drivers' vision, ultimately making pedestrians less safe.
Comparing the two arguments highlights points of intersection where they agree or disagree.
3
Identify the precise statement that one speaker affirms and the other denies.
Thorne asserts pedestrian safety has improved. Vane asserts pedestrian safety has decreased. Therefore, the effect on pedestrian safety is the point at issue.
A valid point at issue must pass the 'Yes/No' test: one speaker must logically answer 'Yes' to the proposition while the other answers 'No'.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the Point at Issue in Two-Speaker Dialogues requires finding a specific proposition that one speaker explicitly or implicitly affirms while the other speaker logically denies.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 186Soru →

Read the following dialogue.

Councilmember: The city must deny the zoning permit for the proposed data center. Operating such a massive facility will drain our municipal water supply for its cooling systems. We simply cannot prioritize corporate expansion over ensuring our residents have reliable access to water.

Developer: Your concern is based on outdated information. The facility will utilize a closed-loop cooling architecture that recycles 99 percent of its water, drawing no more from the municipal supply than a standard office building. Therefore, the new data center will not jeopardize the residents' water access.

Is the following statement true or false based on the dialogue?
The point at issue between the Councilmember and the Developer is whether corporate expansion should be prioritized over ensuring residents have reliable access to water.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The correct answer is False because the Developer does not dispute the Councilmember's principle about prioritization. Instead of arguing that corporate expansion should take precedence, the Developer argues that the data center will not threaten the water supply in the first place. Since the Developer is completely silent on the normative principle, there is no mutual disagreement on that specific issue.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Councilmember's stance on the given statement.
The Councilmember explicitly states that the city cannot prioritize corporate expansion over residents' water access.
To establish the first half of a potential disagreement, we must confirm Speaker 1 holds a clear position on the proposition.
2
Analyze the Developer's stance on the given statement.
The Developer argues only that the facility will not jeopardize water access, remaining completely silent on what should be prioritized if a conflict existed.
A valid point at issue requires the second speaker to hold an opposing view to the first speaker.
3
Compare the stances to determine if there is a mutual disagreement.
Since the Developer does not take a position on the prioritization principle, they do not disagree on it.
Without mutual, opposing stances on a specific proposition, that proposition cannot be the point at issue.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the Point at Issue (The Silence Trap)
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 187Soru →

Elena and Marcus are evaluating a museum's proposal to restore damaged Renaissance sculptures. Analyze their exchange below:

Elena: The museum's proposal to repair the damaged Renaissance sculptures with 3D-printed synthetic resins is misguided. Even if the resins are visually indistinguishable from the original marble at first, they will age differently over time. This discrepancy will eventually distort the artistic integrity of the pieces. We must rely on traditional marble patching, despite the steeper immediate financial burden.

Marcus: I concede that the synthetic resins will age differently from the original marble. However, the resins are entirely reversible and can be safely removed if discoloration occurs. Conversely, traditional marble patching necessitates invasive drilling that inflicts permanent harm on the surviving original stone. For these reasons, applying the resins actually secures the sculptures' artistic integrity for future generations much more effectively.

Based on the conversation, pair each statement with the correct assessment of how the two speakers view it.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Utilizing 3D-printed synthetic resins instead of traditional marble patching will ultimately better preserve the artistic integrity of the sculptures.
Traditional marble patching imposes a steeper immediate financial burden compared to using 3D-printed synthetic resins.
The synthetic resins proposed for the restoration will age in a manner that differs from the original marble over time.
The traditional method of patching marble inflicts permanent harm on the original stone due to invasive drilling.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Statement 1 pairs with 'Elena disagrees; Marcus agrees'. Statement 2 pairs with 'Elena agrees; Marcus's stance is unstated'. Statement 3 pairs with 'Both Elena and Marcus agree'. Statement 4 pairs with 'Elena's stance is unstated; Marcus agrees'.
Each proposition maps strictly to the explicit statements or necessary implications of the speakers. Elena and Marcus directly disagree on the overall effect on artistic integrity (Statement 1). Elena brings up financial cost, on which Marcus is silent (Statement 2). Both explicitly agree that the resins age differently (Statement 3). Marcus brings up the damage from invasive drilling, on which Elena is silent (Statement 4).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first statement regarding preservation of artistic integrity.
Elena believes the resins will distort the integrity and opposes their use. Marcus asserts that using the resins secures the integrity more effectively. Thus, Elena disagrees and Marcus agrees.
To determine the speakers' respective stances on the primary conclusion.
2
Analyze the second statement regarding immediate financial burden.
Elena states that traditional patching has a 'steeper immediate financial burden.' Marcus does not address cost at all. Thus, Elena agrees and Marcus's stance is unstated.
To identify if a proposition acts as a 'silence trap' where one speaker makes no commitment.
3
Analyze the third statement regarding the aging of synthetic resins.
Elena states the resins 'will age differently over time.' Marcus explicitly says 'I concede that the synthetic resins will age differently.' Both speakers agree.
To recognize shared factual premises that both speakers accept despite their opposing conclusions.
4
Analyze the fourth statement regarding permanent harm from invasive drilling.
Marcus states that traditional patching 'necessitates invasive drilling that inflicts permanent harm.' Elena never mentions drilling or permanent physical harm to the original stone. Thus, Marcus agrees and Elena's stance is unstated.
To accurately classify a supporting premise introduced by only one speaker.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying points of agreement, disagreement, and unstated positions in two-speaker dialogues.
Soru 188Soru →

Vance: The recent discovery of elaborately forged copper tools at the Kaelen site indicates that the ancient Kaelen society was governed by a highly centralized authority. Only a powerful central government could have organized the vast, complex trade networks required to transport copper ore from the distant northern mountains to the settlement.

Aris: The copper tools certainly prove that the Kaelen people engaged in long-distance trade. But we should not assume this required centralized leadership; historical evidence shows that loosely affiliated, decentralized nomadic clans frequently sustained equally complex, continent-spanning trade networks through informal barter systems.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Vance and Aris disagree over whether

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: a powerful central authority was required to organize the trade networks that supplied the Kaelen settlement with copper ore.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that a powerful central authority was required to organize the trade networks that supplied the Kaelen settlement with copper ore.
The core of the dispute lies in the necessity of a central government for extensive trade. Vance explicitly asserts this necessity ('Only a powerful central government could have organized...'), while Aris explicitly denies it ('we should not assume this required centralized leadership' because decentralized clans 'frequently sustained equally complex' networks). Thus, this is the exact proposition over which they disagree.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Speaker 1's (Vance's) argument to find the core conclusion and its supporting premise.
Vance concludes the Kaelen society was highly centralized because the complex trade networks needed to get copper ore could ONLY be organized by a powerful central government.
Understanding the logical structure of the first speaker's argument highlights the claims vulnerable to attack.
2
Analyze Speaker 2's (Aris's) response to determine exactly which part of Vance's argument is being challenged.
Aris agrees that long-distance trade occurred but explicitly rejects the idea that centralized leadership was required to organize it, citing decentralized clans as a counterexample.
Point at Issue questions require finding the precise proposition that one speaker affirms and the other denies.
3
Evaluate the options to find the statement where Vance would say 'Yes' and Aris would say 'No' (or vice versa).
Vance says 'Yes' to central authority being required for the trade networks. Aris says 'No' to that exact requirement.
This confirms the correct option captures the mutually exclusive stances of the two speakers.

Anahtar Kavram

Two-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)
Soru 189Soru →

Read the following dialogue.

Mayor: Offering tax incentives to attract remote workers will revitalize our local economy. These professionals spend a significant portion of their income on local dining and entertainment, which directly supports small businesses that are currently struggling.

Economist: While it is true that remote workers spend money locally, the proposed tax incentives would severely deplete the city's budget for public services. Because well-maintained public services are the primary factor that sustains a healthy local economy, implementing these incentives will actually hinder our economic revitalization.

Statement: Based on the dialogue, the Mayor and the Economist disagree over whether remote workers spend a significant portion of their income at local businesses.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False. The statement incorrectly identifies the point at issue. The speakers do not disagree on this point; the Economist explicitly concedes that remote workers spend money locally.
The statement is false because the speakers actually agree on this proposition. The Mayor introduces the premise that remote workers spend money locally, and the Economist explicitly concedes this fact before introducing a counter-premise about depleted public services. Their actual disagreement centers on the overall impact of the tax incentives on the local economy.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Mayor's argument to identify the conclusion and supporting premises.
Conclusion: Tax incentives for remote workers will revitalize the local economy. Premise: Remote workers spend a significant portion of their income locally.
Identifying the components of the first speaker's argument establishes the potential points of agreement or disagreement.
2
Analyze the Economist's argument to identify their stance on the Mayor's conclusion and premises.
Conclusion: Tax incentives will hinder economic revitalization. Premise: The incentives will deplete the budget for public services. Concession: It is true that remote workers spend money locally.
Understanding the second speaker's response reveals exactly where the two speakers' views diverge.
3
Evaluate the proposed statement against the identified stances of both speakers.
The statement claims they disagree about local spending. However, the Mayor asserts this is true, and the Economist explicitly agrees ('While it is true...'). Therefore, it is not a point of disagreement.
A valid point at issue requires one speaker to affirm a proposition and the other to deny it.

Anahtar Kavram

Two-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)
Soru 190Soru →

Historian: The recent declassification of the embassy's internal memos from the 1960s reveals that the ambassador was fully aware of the impending coup weeks before it occurred. Since the ambassador took no action to warn the host government, it is clear that our nation's foreign policy secretly favored the success of the coup.

Archivist: You are misinterpreting those memos. While they do indicate the ambassador's awareness of the coup plot, the lack of a warning was merely adherence to standard diplomatic protocol at the time to avoid interfering in domestic affairs, not an endorsement of the coup.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between the historian and the archivist?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The ambassador's failure to warn the host government demonstrates that the nation's foreign policy secretly supported the coup.

Cevap

The correct answer identifies the core disagreement: whether the ambassador's failure to warn the host government demonstrates that the nation's foreign policy secretly supported the coup.
The correct option isolates the exact proposition in dispute. The historian concludes that the lack of warning was an endorsement ('secretly favored'), while the archivist argues it was 'not an endorsement'. Therefore, they directly disagree over whether the inaction demonstrates support for the coup.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the historian's argument.
Premise: Ambassador knew about the coup and didn't warn the host government. Conclusion: This inaction shows the nation's foreign policy secretly favored the coup.
To identify the first speaker's main claim and reasoning structure.
2
Analyze the archivist's response.
Premise: Lack of warning was adherence to standard non-interference protocol. Conclusion: The inaction was not an endorsement of the coup.
To identify how the second speaker's claim contradicts the first speaker.
3
Compare the two positions to find the exact overlap of disagreement.
The historian says the inaction proves they favored the coup; the archivist explicitly denies this, saying the inaction does not mean they favored it (it was just protocol).
The correct answer must be a statement that one speaker explicitly affirms and the other explicitly denies.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the Point at Issue in a two-speaker dialogue requires finding a proposition that one speaker clearly agrees with and the other clearly disagrees with, avoiding points of agreement or topics only one speaker mentions.
ÖncekiSayfa 10 / 10
Argument Structure and Method Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 10 | Examkin