Argument by Analogy

13 soru

Soru 1Soru →

Architectural conservators have learned that applying rigid, modern synthetic resins to consolidate crumbling ancient stone masonry often accelerates the structure's destruction. The rigid resin prevents the natural stone from 'breathing,' causing trapped moisture to expand during temperature changes and shatter the stone. Similarly, when a multinational corporation acquires a struggling local business, imposing rigid, standardized corporate procedures on the local branch will likely accelerate its financial collapse.

Therefore, multinational corporations should refrain from imposing standardized procedures on the local businesses they acquire.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Unlike ancient stone, which possesses fixed physical properties, a local business consists of adaptable employees who can utilize new standardized procedures to resolve existing inefficiencies.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that unlike ancient stone, a local business consists of adaptable employees who can utilize new standardized procedures to resolve inefficiencies.
The correct answer successfully weakens the argument by highlighting a critical, structural point of disanalogy. The original argument rests entirely on the assumption that a business will respond to rigid rules in the same catastrophic way that inanimate stone responds to rigid resin. By pointing out that human employees are fundamentally different from stone because they can adapt and actually use those rigid procedures to fix inefficiencies, this option severs the logical link between the base analog and the target conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's structure and method of reasoning.
The argument uses an analogy, comparing ancient stone masonry treated with synthetic resin to a local business subjected to standardized corporate procedures.
Understanding the core analogy is necessary to properly evaluate the argument's vulnerabilities.
2
Determine the main conclusion.
The conclusion is that multinational corporations should avoid imposing standardized procedures on acquired local businesses.
To weaken the argument, one must undermine the logical support for this specific conclusion.
3
Evaluate the options based on the task.
The task is to weaken the argument. The most effective way to weaken an argument by analogy is to point out a relevant point of disanalogy—a significant difference between the two things being compared that makes the projected outcome unlikely to occur in the target case.
Validating the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion reveals that the argument assumes human businesses react to rigidity exactly as inanimate objects do. Breaking this assumption destroys the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Arguments by Analogy
Soru 2Soru →

Economist: Software developers routinely release preliminary versions of their applications to a restricted user base. This practice allows developers to identify unforeseen design flaws through actual user testing before a general release. Analogously, the central government should implement its proposed comprehensive corporate tax overhaul in just two mid-sized provinces first. Doing so would allow policymakers to observe real-world economic impacts and correct any legislative flaws before applying the new tax code nationwide.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: fails to consider that, unlike a preliminary software release, a localized tax trial can cause businesses to relocate outside the test area, thereby distorting the very observations the trial is designed to gather.

Cevap

The correct answer identifies that the argument overlooks a critical disanalogy: a localized tax trial can cause capital relocation (which ruins the data gathering process), whereas software testing does not cause a comparable distortion.
This option successfully weakens the argument by pointing out a critical disanalogy between the two situations. The stated purpose of both trials is to observe real-world impacts to identify flaws. However, if a localized tax trial causes businesses to move away to avoid the tax, the economic data gathered will be heavily distorted by this artificial border effect. Because software tests do not suffer from a comparable 'relocation' distortion that ruins the test data, the analogy fails to support the conclusion that the tax trial would yield accurate, useful observations.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's core structure and method.
The economist argues by analogy: just as software developers use restricted beta releases to find and fix flaws, the government should use a geographically restricted tax trial to find and fix legislative flaws.
Understanding the base case (software) and target case (tax policy) is necessary for evaluating the strength of an analogy.
2
Identify the conclusion and the supporting premises.
Premise: Restricted software releases help find design flaws. Conclusion: A restricted tax rollout will help policymakers observe impacts and fix legislative flaws before national implementation.
Isolating the conclusion clarifies what the argument is trying to prove and how the analogy is supposed to support it.
3
Evaluate the strength of the analogy by looking for relevant differences.
An argument by analogy is most vulnerable if there is a relevant difference (disanalogy) between the two cases that directly undermines the conclusion.
We must look for a difference that specifically prevents the tax trial from achieving its stated goal of accurate economic observation.
4
Select the option that exposes the critical disanalogy.
The option stating that businesses might relocate outside the test area shows how the tax trial would yield distorted, inaccurate data, unlike a software test.
This directly attacks the analogy's assumption that the two localized trials would function similarly in successfully revealing flaws without inherently corrupting the test environment.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument by Analogy (Identifying Relevant Disanalogies)
Soru 3Soru →

City Council Member: To reduce the alarming rate of bicycle thefts in our city, we should implement a mandatory bicycle registration program, much like our existing automobile registration system. Our automobile registration requires owners to display visible plates and maintains easily traceable records in a central database; this system has made stealing cars incredibly difficult and risky. Similarly, requiring visible registration tags and maintaining a database of bicycle owners will effectively deter bicycle thieves.

Which of the following, if true, points out the most serious weakness in the city council member's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Unlike automobiles, which have deeply integrated vehicle identification numbers, bicycles can have registration tags and serial numbers quickly and permanently removed by a thief.

Cevap

The statement pointing out that unlike automobiles, bicycles can have their registration tags easily removed.
The correct answer directly attacks the core assumption of the analogy. For the bicycle registration program to mimic the success of the automobile program, the tracking mechanisms must be similarly robust. By pointing out that bicycle tags can be easily and permanently removed—unlike deeply integrated car identification numbers—this option demonstrates a critical difference (disanalogy) between the two cases, effectively destroying the argument's predictive power.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that requiring visible registration tags and a database will effectively deter bicycle thieves.
Understanding the main point is required to know what needs to be weakened.
2
Identify the premises and method of reasoning.
The author uses an argument by analogy: because a similar system worked for cars (due to visible plates and traceable records), it will work for bicycles.
Identifying the analogy highlights the core structural assumption: that cars and bicycles are similar enough in the relevant ways for the plan to succeed.
3
Evaluate the analogy for potential flaws (disanalogies).
A strong weaken answer will show a relevant difference between cars and bicycles regarding traceability and registration tags.
If the two subjects differ significantly regarding the mechanism of success, the analogy falls apart.
4
Select the option that breaks the analogy.
The correct option points out that bicycle tags can be easily removed, whereas car identifiers are deeply integrated.
This directly attacks the premise that bicycle registration will function just like car registration in practice.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying a relevant disanalogy to weaken an argument by analogy.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 4Soru →

Philosopher: Evaluating a literary work by examining the moral character of its author is as absurd as evaluating a mathematical proof by examining the moral character of the mathematician who derived it. A mathematical proof's validity relies entirely on its internal logical coherence, which is independent of the mathematician's personal virtues. Therefore, the aesthetic merit of a literary work must similarly be assessed independently of the author's personal character.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the philosopher's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It overlooks a potentially relevant difference between the criteria for mathematical validity and the criteria for literary merit.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument overlooks a potentially relevant difference between the criteria for mathematical validity and the criteria for literary merit.
The correct answer accurately identifies the classic weakness of an argument by analogy: the presence of a relevant disanalogy. The philosopher assumes that because the creator's morality is irrelevant in math, it must be irrelevant in literature. However, mathematical proofs are entirely abstract and logical, whereas literary works frequently deal with human experiences, emotions, and moral themes. Because the nature of the two fields is fundamentally different, comparing them to prove a point about moral character is a flawed analogy.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core structure and main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that the aesthetic merit of a literary work must be assessed independently of the author's personal character.
Finding the conclusion helps determine what the premises are trying to prove.
2
Identify the method of reasoning used in the premises.
The philosopher uses an argument by analogy, comparing the evaluation of literary works to the evaluation of mathematical proofs.
Understanding how the conclusion is supported is necessary to evaluate the argument's validity.
3
Evaluate the strength of the analogy to find the logical flaw.
The analogy is weak because mathematics is purely logical and abstract, whereas literature often explores human morality and ethics. Therefore, the author's moral character might be relevant to literature in a way it is not to mathematics.
Arguments by analogy are most vulnerable when there is a significant, relevant difference (disanalogy) between the two things being compared.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying flaws in arguments by analogy (False Analogy)
Soru 5Soru →

Ethicist: In emergency medical triage, doctors correctly prioritize patients who can benefit most from immediate intervention over those with more severe but largely untreatable conditions. This protocol is justified because the overarching goal is maximizing overall survival given strictly limited resources. Similarly, when a government allocates its limited environmental conservation budget, it ought to direct funding primarily toward moderately degraded ecosystems that are highly recoverable, rather than exhausting resources on ecosystems that are on the verge of total, irreversible collapse.

Which of the following statements, if true, identify relevant points of disanalogy that undermine the ethicist's argument? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The total collapse of a single ecosystem often triggers cascading environmental failures in surrounding regions, whereas a patient succumbing to an untreatable condition does not biologically accelerate the physical deterioration of other patients.; The efficacy of medical interventions in triage can be statistically predicted based on established clinical histories, whereas the actual recoverability of a degraded ecosystem is virtually impossible to assess prior to intervention.; In medical triage, the definition of a single patient is biologically absolute, whereas the boundaries of what constitutes a single ecosystem are fluid, arbitrary, and highly debated among ecologists.

Cevap

The correct statements are those identifying cascading environmental failures, the impossibility of assessing ecosystem recoverability, and the fluid boundaries of ecosystems.
An argument by analogy relies on the assumption that the source domain and the target domain share the structural properties necessary for the underlying principle to work. The ethicist's principle is quantitative utility maximization: counting discrete units and saving those most likely to survive independently. The correct options dismantle this mapping by proving the target domain lacks these necessary properties: ecosystems are not independent (abandoning one harms others), they are not epistemically predictable (we don't know which are 'treatable'), and they are not discrete, countable units.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the source domain (medical triage).
Resources are allocated to maximize overall survival by prioritizing highly treatable patients over severe, untreatable ones.
Understanding the precise logic of the base case is necessary to evaluate the analogy.
2
Analyze the target domain (environmental conservation).
The ethicist maps 'treatable patients' to 'recoverable ecosystems' and 'untreatable patients' to 'collapsing ecosystems', applying the same utilitarian protocol.
This establishes the exact structural mapping the author relies upon.
3
Evaluate the options for structural differences (disanalogies) that break the logic.
Differences in interdependence, epistemic predictability, and quantifiable boundaries disrupt the analogy's utilitarian calculus.
An argument by analogy is weakened only when a difference between the two domains prevents the underlying principle from successfully translating.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Arguments by Analogy through identifying structurally relevant disanalogies.
Soru 6Soru →

Read the following argument carefully.

Policy Analyst: When commercial aviation was in its infancy, government regulators did not impose strict, comprehensive safety standards immediately; instead, they allowed the industry room to experiment, stepping in with rigid regulations only after the technology had matured and common risks were well understood. Therefore, in our current approach to regulating autonomous vehicles, we should similarly avoid enacting comprehensive safety mandates too early. Premature regulation will only stifle innovation in autonomous driving before we fully understand its capabilities and risks.

Match each structural component of this argument by analogy (on the left) to its corresponding specific concept or statement from the text (on the right).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Target Subject (The primary focus of the argument's conclusion)
Base Subject (The analog used as the source of comparison)
Base Characteristic (The historical fact described in the premise)
Target Recommendation (The policy action advocated for in the conclusion)

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The target subject is autonomous vehicles. The base subject is early commercial aviation. The base characteristic is allowing industry experimentation before imposing rigid rules. The target recommendation is avoiding the early enactment of comprehensive safety mandates.
In an argument by analogy, the author compares a Target Subject (the topic of the conclusion, here 'autonomous vehicles') to a Base Subject (a known or historical analog, here 'early commercial aviation'). The author highlights a Base Characteristic (that aviation regulators allowed experimentation before imposing strict rules) and maps this to a Target Recommendation (that we should avoid early safety mandates for autonomous vehicles).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument to determine the Target Subject.
The conclusion states what we should do in our 'current approach to regulating autonomous vehicles.'
The target of an analogy is the subject the author is ultimately trying to make a point about.
2
Identify the comparative example used to support the conclusion to determine the Base Subject.
The author uses 'commercial aviation... in its infancy' as the comparison point.
The base (or analog) is the established situation that is being compared to the target.
3
Identify the specific facts or premises asserted about the Base Subject to find the Base Characteristic.
The text states that regulators for early aviation 'allowed the industry room to experiment, stepping in with rigid regulations only after the technology had matured.'
Arguments by analogy work by transferring a known characteristic of the base to the target.
4
Identify what the author suggests should be done regarding the Target Subject to find the Target Recommendation.
The text states we should 'avoid enacting comprehensive safety mandates too early.'
This is the final transferred property that forms the argument's conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Structural components of an argument by analogy (Base/Analog vs. Target)
Soru 7Soru →

Read the following argument carefully.

Information Scientist: Physical museums routinely deaccession—sell or discard—artifacts that are highly redundant or severely degraded. They do this to dedicate their finite storage and maintenance budgets to preserving the most culturally significant pieces. Attempting to preserve every single physical artifact inevitably leads to a degradation in the quality of care for truly important pieces. By the exact same logic, national data centers should implement automated deletion protocols for redundant or corrupted digital records. Attempting to save every byte of data will similarly compromise our ability to secure and maintain critical digital infrastructure.

Which of the following, if true, represent valid points of disanalogy that weaken the information scientist's argument? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Redundant digital records frequently serve as necessary cryptographic backups that actively protect critical infrastructure from data loss, whereas redundant physical artifacts provide no such structural protection to other artifacts.; The physical deterioration of one museum artifact can spread mold or chemical degradation to adjacent culturally significant pieces, whereas a corrupted digital record poses no risk of spreading corruption to independently stored critical infrastructure.

Cevap

The correct selections are the statement regarding redundant digital records acting as cryptographic backups, and the statement regarding the physical deterioration of artifacts spreading mold or chemicals.
The correct options successfully identify structural differences between the base case (museums) and the target case (data centers) that undermine the conclusion. The statement concerning cryptographic backups reveals that redundant digital data has a protective function that redundant physical artifacts lack, breaking the premise that redundancy is universally detrimental. The statement regarding the spread of physical degradation (mold or chemicals) highlights a contagion risk inherent to physical storage that does not apply to digital storage, weakening the claim that corrupted data threatens critical digital infrastructure in the exact same way degraded physical artifacts threaten collections.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the base case, the target case, and the conclusion of the analogy.
Base case: Physical museums discarding redundant/degraded artifacts to save resources. Target case: Data centers deleting redundant/corrupted data. Conclusion: Data centers should delete data to protect critical infrastructure.
Understanding the exact components of the analogy is necessary to find structural differences between them.
2
Determine what constitutes a 'valid point of disanalogy that weakens the argument'.
A valid weakening disanalogy must show a relevant difference between physical artifacts and digital data that makes the museum's strategy inappropriate or unnecessary for a data center.
To weaken an argument by analogy, one must attack the structural similarities the conclusion relies upon.
3
Evaluate each option against the requirements of a weakening disanalogy.
The option regarding cryptographic backups shows digital redundancy is beneficial (unlike physical redundancy). The option regarding mold/chemicals shows physical degradation actively harms other items (unlike digital corruption). The other options attack a premise, state a similarity, or highlight an irrelevant detail.
Systematic elimination ensures that only the options directly disrupting the logical translation from the base case to the target case are selected.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Arguments by Analogy
Soru 8Soru →

City X successfully reduced traffic congestion by implementing a toll for drivers entering the city center during rush hour. City Y, which is currently facing severe traffic congestion, should therefore also implement a downtown rush hour toll to solve its traffic problem.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Unlike City X, which has an extensive public transportation network, City Y currently lacks any viable public transit alternatives for commuters.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that City Y lacks public transit alternatives compared to City X.
The correct answer effectively weakens the analogy by pointing out a critical relevant difference (disanalogy) between the two cities. For a toll to successfully reduce traffic, drivers must have an alternative way to commute. Since City X had public transit and City Y does not, the toll is unlikely to produce the same result in City Y.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's conclusion and premises.
Premise: City X reduced congestion with a toll. Conclusion: City Y should implement a toll to solve its congestion.
Understanding the structure is required to evaluate the argument properly.
2
Determine the method of reasoning.
The argument uses an analogy, comparing City Y's situation directly to City X's situation.
Identifying the argument type dictates how to accurately weaken it.
3
Formulate a strategy to weaken the argument.
Look for a relevant difference (a disanalogy) between City X and City Y that suggests the toll will not work in City Y.
An argument by analogy is most effectively weakened by showing that the two cases being compared are fundamentally different in a way that affects the predicted outcome.
4
Evaluate the options against the strategy.
The option stating City Y lacks public transit highlights a critical difference: without alternatives, commuters in City Y must still drive, rendering the toll ineffective at reducing traffic.
This directly attacks the assumption that the two cities are similar enough for the exact same solution to work.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Analogy
Soru 9Soru →

Read the following argument carefully.

In evolutionary biology, 'convergent evolution' occurs when distantly related lineages independently develop analogous structures to adapt to parallel environmental selective pressures—for instance, the hydrodynamic, streamlined morphologies of both cetaceans (mammals) and chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes). These physiological traits do not emanate from a recent shared genetic lineage, but rather from a shared imperative to overcome identical fluid dynamic constraints. A strictly isomorphic phenomenon is observable in the contemporary software industry regarding the user experience architectures of enterprise productivity suites. Despite being architected upon fundamentally incompatible legacy codebases and engineered by antagonistic corporate entities devoid of shared intellectual property, the graphical interfaces of elite word processors and financial modeling software have converged upon a nearly indistinguishable topology. Just as fluid dynamic realities compel biological morphological uniformity, the immutable cognitive bandwidth limits of human users and the relentless market mandate for frictionless cross-application interoperability have compelled an architectural homogeneity upon these disparate digital tools.

Based on the argument by analogy presented above, match each element from the target domain (the software industry) with its exact structural equivalent in the base domain (evolutionary biology).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Incompatible legacy codebases and the absence of shared intellectual property
The nearly indistinguishable topology of modern graphical interfaces
The immutable cognitive bandwidth limits and mandate for interoperability
Enterprise productivity suites engineered by antagonistic corporate entities

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct mapping pairs 'Incompatible legacy codebases...' with 'The condition of not emanating from a recent shared genetic lineage'; 'The nearly indistinguishable topology...' with 'The independent development of analogous structures...'; 'The immutable cognitive bandwidth limits...' with 'Parallel environmental selective pressures...'; and 'Enterprise productivity suites...' with 'Distantly related lineages...'.
The correct mapping aligns the structural elements of both domains perfectly: the unrelated subjects (suites/lineages), their lack of common origin (codebases/genetic lineage), the forces acting upon them (bandwidth limits/environmental pressures), and the resulting convergence (topology/morphology).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the base domain and the target domain in the stimulus.
Base domain: evolutionary biology (convergent evolution). Target domain: software industry (convergent interface design).
Argument by analogy relies on mapping structural components from a familiar base domain to a complex target domain.
2
Determine the structural role of the subjects undergoing change.
In biology, these are the 'distantly related lineages' (cetaceans and chondrichthyes). In software, these are the 'enterprise productivity suites engineered by antagonistic corporate entities'.
Establishing the primary subjects of the analogy anchors the remaining relational mappings.
3
Map the starting conditions of the subjects.
Biological subjects lack a 'recent shared genetic lineage'. Software subjects are built on 'incompatible legacy codebases and the absence of shared intellectual property'.
This pairs the independent origins that make the subsequent convergence notable.
4
Map the external forces driving the convergence.
Biology features 'parallel environmental selective pressures' (fluid dynamic constraints). Software features 'immutable cognitive bandwidth limits' and 'mandate for interoperability'.
Identifying the causal mechanisms is critical to understanding the mechanism of the analogy.
5
Map the final convergent outcomes.
Biological lineages develop 'analogous structures and streamlined morphologies'. Software suites develop a 'nearly indistinguishable topology of modern graphical interfaces'.
This pairs the identical endpoints resulting from the external pressures.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Analogy
Soru 10Soru →

Museum Director: In art conservation, we frequently strip away the dull patina that accumulates on ancient bronze statues over centuries. This practice is entirely justified, as removing this later accumulation reveals the gleaming metal underneath, thereby allowing modern viewers to experience the sculpture's appearance exactly as the original artist intended. By this exact same logic, literary translators producing modern editions of ancient epic poetry should aggressively replace the poems' archaic, obsolete vocabulary with contemporary street slang. Just as removing the patina restores the visual impact of the statue, modernizing the vocabulary restores the visceral, immediate emotional impact the poem had on its original listeners.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The argument relies on an analogy that equates removing a later accumulation to uncover original material with replacing original material to recreate a psychological effect.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument relies on an analogy equating the removal of a later accumulation to uncover original material with the replacement of original material to recreate a psychological effect.
The correct answer accurately identifies the structural breakdown in the director's analogy. The director compares restoring a statue to restoring a poem. However, 'restoring' the statue involves removing a natural accumulation (patina) to reveal the artist's actual, original work. In contrast, 'restoring' the poem involves deleting the artist's actual, original words and replacing them with entirely new contemporary words. The analogy is flawed because it falsely equates uncovering an original medium with replacing an original medium.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core conclusion and its primary supporting premise.
The conclusion is that translators should replace archaic vocabulary in ancient epics with modern slang. The premise is an analogy comparing this to removing patina from ancient bronze statues.
Isolating the conclusion and the evidence is the required first step in analyzing any LSAT logical reasoning argument.
2
Analyze the structure of the base case in the analogy (the bronze statues).
In the base case, art conservators remove a later, natural accumulation (the patina) in order to reveal and preserve the artist's actual, original physical medium (the metal).
To evaluate an argument by analogy, we must precisely understand the mechanics of the baseline situation being used for comparison.
3
Analyze the structure of the target case in the analogy (the epic poetry).
In the target case, translators are advised to remove the artist's actual, original medium (the archaic vocabulary) and replace it entirely with new material (modern slang).
Comparing the exact mechanics of the target case against the base case reveals whether the analogy holds logically.
4
Evaluate the validity of the analogy to find the logical flaw.
The analogy fails because the two actions are structurally opposite. The first uncovers the original work, while the second destroys and substitutes the original work. The argument falsely equates these opposite actions simply because they aim for a similar end goal (restoring initial impact).
Identifying where a comparison structurally breaks down is the key to answering an 'Analogy Flaw' question.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Analogy Flaws (False Analogy)
Soru 11Soru →

Read the philosopher's argument below carefully.

Philosopher: Proponents of strict bio-conservation argue that we have a moral duty to prevent the extinction of any currently existing species, as each species represents a unique, irreplaceable thread in the ecological tapestry. However, this is like arguing that a library must preserve every single manuscript ever written, regardless of its quality or the cost of preservation. Just as a library with finite space and resources must curate its collection, prioritizing works of significant historical or literary value to maintain a functional and useful institution, environmental policymakers, possessing limited resources, must prioritize the preservation of keystone species that are crucial for the stability of the entire ecosystem, rather than attempting to save every single species indiscriminately.

Match the components of the philosopher's library analogy (the base case) with their structural counterparts in the argument regarding bio-conservation (the target case).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Every single manuscript ever written
Works of significant historical or literary value
A functional and useful institution
The library's finite space and resources

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct mapping correctly aligns the structural roles: indiscriminate collection items map to any existing species; prioritized high-value items map to keystone species; the overarching goal of a functional institution maps to ecosystem stability; and the constraint of library space maps to policymakers' limited resources.
The correct mapping is structurally isomorphic. The author uses the absurdity of saving 'every single manuscript' to highlight the flaw in saving 'any currently existing species'. To solve the library's 'finite space', one saves 'works of significant value' to maintain a 'functional institution'. Similarly, to solve the 'limited resources' problem, one saves 'keystone species' to maintain 'ecosystem stability'.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the base case (the library analogy).
Identify the four key elements: the indiscriminate collection (every manuscript), the constrained reality (finite space/resources), the selective priority (works of significant value), and the ultimate goal (a functional institution).
Understanding the functional role of each element in the source analogy is necessary before mapping them to the target subject.
2
Analyze the structure of the target case (bio-conservation).
Identify the corresponding four elements: the indiscriminate collection (any currently existing species), the constrained reality (policymakers' limited resources), the selective priority (keystone species), and the ultimate goal (stability of the entire ecosystem).
Deconstructing the target argument reveals the structural slots that the analogy is meant to fill.
3
Map the corresponding elements based on their argumentative function.
Link the indiscriminate items together, the practical constraints together, the prioritized items together, and the ultimate goals together.
An argument by analogy relies on a structural isomorphism; matching elements must serve the exact same logical role in both domains.

Anahtar Kavram

In an argument by analogy, the strength and meaning of the argument derive from the structural mapping of relationships from a familiar base case to a complex target case. Correctly identifying these relational roles is essential for evaluating the argument.
Soru 12Soru →

Financial Advisor: Our city will soon replace its tiered residential property tax system with a single flat-rate residential property tax. Ten years ago, the neighboring municipality of Mapleton replaced its tiered commercial tax system with a flat commercial tax. Following that change, Mapleton saw a dramatic reduction in administrative costs and a surge in new commercial investments. Therefore, adopting a flat residential property tax in our city will similarly reduce administrative costs and spur new residential investments.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Unlike commercial tax complexity, which arises primarily from applying tiered rates to various revenue streams, residential property tax complexity stems entirely from assessing the base value of the properties themselves.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that residential property tax complexity stems entirely from assessing the base value of the properties themselves, unlike commercial tax complexity.
The correct answer directly attacks the analogy by pointing out a relevant difference between commercial taxes and residential taxes. If the administrative burden of residential taxes comes from assessing the value of the properties rather than calculating the rates, then switching to a flat rate will not solve the administrative burden. This severs the causal link implied by the comparison to Mapleton's commercial tax change.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the conclusion and the premises.
The conclusion is that a flat residential property tax will reduce costs and spur investment. The premise is that a flat commercial tax had this exact effect in Mapleton.
Understanding the core argument is the fundamental first step in evaluating logical validity.
2
Identify the primary method of reasoning used by the author.
The advisor uses an argument by analogy, comparing commercial taxes in Mapleton (the base) to residential taxes in the local city (the target).
Knowing the specific method of reasoning reveals the argument's inherent logical vulnerabilities.
3
Determine how to evaluate and weaken an argument by analogy.
An argument by analogy is most effectively weakened by pointing out a relevant difference (a disanalogy) between the two things being compared.
If the two situations differ in a critical way that affects the predicted outcome, the analogy logically fails.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find a statement that highlights a critical disanalogy.
The correct option demonstrates that the source of administrative costs in residential taxes (assessing property value) is fundamentally different from that of commercial taxes (tiered rates).
This directly undermines the predictive power of the analogy by severing the causal link.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Arguments by Analogy
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 13Soru →

Policy Analyst: The extraction of minerals from the deep seabed in international waters is effectively governed by a centralized international tribunal that mandates strict environmental protection protocols and redistributes a portion of all profits to developing nations. If we want to ensure the environmentally safe and globally equitable development of asteroid mining, we must establish a comparable international tribunal to issue licenses, enforce environmental standards, and distribute a share of the profits.

Which of the following statements, if true, identify relevant points of disanalogy between asteroid mining and deep-sea mining that logically weaken the analyst's argument? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Unlike the deep seabed, where extraction directly threatens fragile marine ecosystems, asteroids are entirely sterile bodies devoid of biological life, rendering strict environmental protection protocols unnecessary.; The initial capital required for asteroid mining is exponentially higher than the costs of deep-sea mining, meaning that mandatory profit redistribution would completely deter the private investment necessary to develop space extraction.

Cevap

The correct options are the ones stating that asteroids are sterile bodies rendering environmental protocols unnecessary, and that the exponentially higher capital required for asteroid mining makes profit redistribution unviable.
Arguments by analogy fail when there are relevant differences between the two things being compared. The author assumes that because environmental protocols and profit redistribution work for the deep seabed, they will work for asteroids. The correct answers expose critical differences: the biological sterility of asteroids removes the need for environmental protection, and the distinct economic realities of space travel make profit redistribution unworkable.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure and the specific analogy being made.
The argument compares deep-sea mining (analog) to asteroid mining (target). It concludes that because a tribunal successfully uses environmental protocols and profit redistribution for the seabed, the same mechanisms should be applied to asteroids.
Understanding the precise points of comparison is necessary to evaluate the analogy.
2
Identify the criteria for a correct answer.
The correct answers must point out a difference (disanalogy) between the deep seabed and asteroids that makes applying the specific solutions (environmental protocols or profit redistribution) inappropriate or ineffective for asteroids.
The prompt explicitly asks for relevant points of disanalogy that weaken the argument.
3
Evaluate the options against the criteria.
The option regarding sterile asteroid environments dismantles the need for environmental protocols. The option regarding the exponentially higher capital costs dismantles the viability of profit redistribution.
Both of these options strike directly at the core mechanisms the author is trying to transfer from the analog to the target.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Arguments by Analogy