Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions

16 soru

Soru 1Soru →

Journalist: The city council's new zoning policy restricts high-density residential buildings to the downtown core. This restriction will inevitably drive up housing prices in the suburbs, because demand for suburban housing will remain high while supply remains artificially limited. It follows that the new zoning policy will exacerbate the region's overall affordability crisis. Therefore, the mayor should veto the council's policy before it takes effect.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the journalist's argument by the claim that the new zoning policy will exacerbate the region's overall affordability crisis?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion that is supported by a claim about suburban housing prices and that is used, in turn, to support the argument's main conclusion.

Cevap

The statement acts as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion that bridges the predicted rise in suburban housing prices to the final recommendation that the mayor should veto the policy.
The correct answer accurately identifies the target statement as a subsidiary (or intermediate) conclusion. The phrase 'It follows that' indicates that it is a conclusion drawn from the preceding evidence about rising suburban housing prices. In turn, this statement serves as a premise to justify the argument's final prescriptive claim: that the mayor should veto the policy (indicated by 'Therefore').

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is the final prescriptive sentence: 'Therefore, the mayor should veto the council's policy before it takes effect.'
The word 'Therefore' is a strong conclusion indicator, and this sentence represents the ultimate position the journalist is arguing for.
2
Analyze the role of the target statement: 'the new zoning policy will exacerbate the region's overall affordability crisis.'
The target statement is introduced by 'It follows that', which marks it as a conclusion. However, it is not the final point of the argument.
It is a logical deduction drawn from the previous claims about suburban housing prices.
3
Determine the structural relationship between the target statement and the rest of the argument.
The statement is supported by earlier evidence and directly supports the main conclusion.
A statement that is supported by premises and in turn supports the main conclusion is classified as an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 2Soru →

Art Historian: The recently discovered portrait *Lady in Blue* was painted by either Verrocchio or one of his apprentices. The painting utilizes a unique lapis lazuli pigment that was prohibitively expensive during the 1470s. Guild records show that only Verrocchio's primary workshop, not the satellite studios run by his apprentices, purchased this specific pigment during that decade. Therefore, the *Lady in Blue* must be the work of Verrocchio himself. Thus, the current owners of the painting should have it insured for a value commensurate with a verified Verrocchio masterwork.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the art historian's argument by the claim that the *Lady in Blue* must be the work of Verrocchio himself?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is supported by the evidence regarding pigment purchases and that in turn supports the argument's final recommendation regarding insurance.

Cevap

The statement functions as an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion. It is logically supported by the premises about the lapis lazuli pigment and the guild records, and it simultaneously serves to support the argument's final conclusion regarding insurance.
The correct answer accurately identifies the target statement as an intermediate conclusion. It receives logical support from the preceding premises regarding the identity of the painter, the type of pigment used, and the guild records. In turn, it provides the necessary logical foundation for the argument's final recommendation—that the painting should be insured as a Verrocchio masterwork.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The final sentence, 'Thus, the current owners of the painting should have it insured for a value commensurate with a verified Verrocchio masterwork,' is the main conclusion.
This is the ultimate recommendation the art historian is attempting to prove, and it receives support from the rest of the text while supporting nothing else.
2
Analyze the structural role of the target statement.
The target statement, 'the Lady in Blue must be the work of Verrocchio himself,' is introduced by the indicator word 'Therefore', signaling it is a conclusion.
Structural indicators help map the logical flow, but the precise type of conclusion must be determined by its relationship to the rest of the argument.
3
Determine the relationship between the target statement, the premises, and the main conclusion.
The target statement is proven by the first three sentences (the premises about the expensive pigment and guild purchases). It is then used as a stepping stone to prove the final sentence (the insurance recommendation).
A statement that is supported by premises and in turn acts as a premise to support the main conclusion is classified as an intermediate conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 3Soru →

The five statements below constitute a single, continuous logical argument. Reconstruct the precise logical flow of this argument by ordering the claims sequentially. Begin with the foundational empirical premise, proceed through the chain of intermediate conclusions, and end with the argument's final prescriptive conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence progresses from the foundational physical premise (dredging creates plumes), to the biological impact (plumes suffocate organisms), to the ecological conclusion (surveying damages biodiversity), to the policy evaluation (the treaty is inadequate), and finally to the prescriptive main conclusion (coalitions must withhold endorsement).
The argument is structured as a strict causal and logical chain. It begins with the physical reality of dredging plumes. This physical reality causes a biological consequence (suffocation of benthic organisms). This biological consequence leads to a general ecological deduction: even non-commercial surveying is intrinsically damaging. Because surveying is damaging, the treaty's exemption for it makes the policy fundamentally inadequate (an intermediate conclusion evaluating a policy). Finally, because the policy is inadequate, the author arrives at the main conclusion: a prescriptive demand that environmental coalitions must withhold their endorsement.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational factual premise that does not rely on prior evidence.
The statement about dredging generating sediment plumes acts as the unstated starting point.
It introduces the initial physical action and contains no logical inferences, making it the bedrock of the argument.
2
Follow demonstrative adjectives and logical cause-and-effect to find the next links.
The statement mentioning 'these artificial plumes' and their suffocating effect must immediately follow the foundational premise.
The reference to 'these artificial plumes' requires the prior establishment of the plumes, and it draws a biological inference from that physical fact.
3
Determine what the biological impact proves about surveying missions.
The statement concluding that 'surveying missions utilizing such dredging techniques inflict widespread... damage' logically follows the biological impact.
It synthesizes the mechanism (dredging) and the consequence (suffocation) into a broader intermediate conclusion about biodiversity damage.
4
Connect the ecological damage to the policy evaluation.
The statement evaluating the Oceanic Mining Treaty follows next, analyzing 'these ostensibly non-extractive surveying operations'.
The argument uses the established danger of the surveying operations to conclude that the treaty's exemption for them represents a failure to protect the ecosystem.
5
Identify the ultimate prescriptive claim as the main conclusion.
The statement demanding that coalitions 'must withhold their endorsement' is placed at the end.
This is a call to action justified entirely by the treaty's inadequacy established in the preceding step, and it does not support any further claims.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating the structural roles of statements in a complex argument, specifically distinguishing between foundational premises, chains of intermediate conclusions, and prescriptive main conclusions.

Alternatif Yöntem

You can solve this efficiently by working backward. First, identify the most prescriptive claim as the ultimate main conclusion (the call to withhold endorsement). Ask yourself: 'What justifies this action?' The answer is the treaty's inadequacy. Ask: 'What justifies the claim that the treaty is inadequate?' The answer is the ecological damage of surveying. Continue tracing the 'Why?' backward until you hit the foundational premise that requires no further justification within the scope of the argument.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 4Soru →

Neuroscientist: During REM sleep, the brain actively prunes synaptic connections formed during waking hours. This pruning process prevents the neural network from becoming oversaturated with trivial sensory data. Therefore, REM sleep is essential for maintaining long-term cognitive efficiency. Some researchers argue that slow-wave sleep is more critical than REM sleep because slow-wave sleep is directly responsible for memory consolidation. However, memory consolidation is ultimately ineffective if the brain's overall processing capacity is compromised by synaptic clutter. Thus, any comprehensive medical treatment for severe cognitive fatigue must prioritize the restoration of REM sleep cycles over deep, slow-wave sleep.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the neuroscientist's argument by the claim that REM sleep is essential for maintaining long-term cognitive efficiency?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is derived from the observation about synaptic pruning and that, in turn, provides support for the argument's main conclusion.

Cevap

It is an intermediate conclusion that is derived from the observation about synaptic pruning and that, in turn, provides support for the argument's main conclusion.
The target statement acts as a logical bridge in the argument's structure. The indicator word 'Therefore' signals that it is a conclusion drawn from the preceding sentences regarding synaptic pruning and neural oversaturation. However, the argument does not stop there; it utilizes this established point about cognitive efficiency to counter an opposing view and ultimately justify its main conclusion regarding medical treatments for cognitive fatigue. Thus, it perfectly fits the definition of an intermediate conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the stimulus to isolate the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is found in the final sentence: 'Thus, any comprehensive medical treatment for severe cognitive fatigue must prioritize the restoration of REM sleep cycles over deep, slow-wave sleep.'
Identifying the main conclusion provides the structural endpoint toward which all other supporting statements point.
2
Locate the target claim in the text and determine what supports it.
The target claim begins with 'Therefore'. It is directly supported by the first two sentences, which explain the mechanism of synaptic pruning during REM sleep.
If a claim is supported by other statements in the argument, it functions as a conclusion of some kind, ruling out the possibility that it is a foundational, unsupported premise.
3
Determine the relationship between the target claim and the main conclusion.
The target claim establishes why REM sleep is vital (maintaining cognitive efficiency), which is then used alongside the rebuttal about memory consolidation to prove the main conclusion (treatments must prioritize REM sleep).
Because the target claim is supported by premises and subsequently supports the final conclusion, its precise structural role is an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 5Soru →

Construct a logically sound, multi-step argument by placing the following claims in their correct sequential order, starting with foundational premises and building through intermediate deductions to the ultimate conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence begins with the premise about global warming causing opacity, followed by its direct effect on sunlight, the premise about organisms' reliance on sunlight, the resulting decrease in biomass, and finally the ultimate conclusion regarding fish population declines.
The argument forms a continuous logical chain. It starts with an environmental premise (warming causes opacity). This leads to a first intermediate conclusion (less sunlight). A new premise is then introduced (organisms need sunlight). Combining these leads to a second intermediate conclusion (organism biomass decreases). Finally, another premise is introduced within the last sentence (fish eat the organisms), which leads directly to the main conclusion (fish populations will decline).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the absolute starting points of the argument that do not depend on other statements.
The statement about global warming causing surface opacity is the independent trigger for the entire scenario.
A logically sound argument must begin with foundational evidence.
2
Locate the immediate logical consequence of the first premise.
The claim that 'significantly less sunlight will penetrate' is the direct result of the surface opacity established in the first step.
Intermediate conclusions are built by drawing immediate inferences from the preceding premises.
3
Identify any additional factual information required to continue the logical chain.
The statement explaining that twilight zone organisms rely entirely on sunlight introduces a new necessary fact.
Before concluding that the organisms will die off, the argument must first establish their biological dependence on the diminishing resource.
4
Determine the consequence of combining the lack of sunlight with the organisms' reliance on it.
The deduction that the biomass of these organisms will inevitably decrease follows directly from the previous two established points.
This acts as a second intermediate conclusion, bridging the gap between the environmental changes and the final impact.
5
Identify the final conclusion that the entire argument builds toward.
The prediction that deep-water fish populations will experience severe declines is the ultimate consequence.
The main conclusion must logically flow from the final intermediate conclusion (the decrease in food source) and encapsulate the author's primary warning.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 6Soru →

Historian: Recent analyses of medieval European agricultural records reveal a sudden, widespread shift from two-field to three-field crop rotation systems in the early 9th century. Implementing a three-field system required unprecedented communal coordination, as individual peasant landholdings were heavily intermixed. Consequently, the rapid adoption of this system could not have occurred through localized, grassroots consensus alone. Since centralized administrative structures in the 9th century were largely ecclesiastical, it must be the case that monastic networks played a direct role in enforcing these agricultural reforms.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the historian's argument by the claim that the rapid adoption of the three-field system could not have occurred through localized, grassroots consensus alone?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion derived from the practical difficulties of crop rotation, which in turn justifies the argument's final conclusion regarding monastic involvement.

Cevap

The statement acts as a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion that is deduced from the preceding evidence about coordination requirements and is subsequently used to support the final conclusion about monastic networks.
The statement in question receives logical support from the preceding sentences, which explain why the new agricultural system required immense coordination due to intermixed land. This makes it a conclusion, explicitly marked by the indicator 'Consequently.' However, the argument does not stop there. It uses this deduction—that grassroots consensus wasn't enough—as a springboard to prove its ultimate point: that monastic networks must have been responsible. Therefore, it functions precisely as an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is: 'it must be the case that monastic networks played a direct role in enforcing these agricultural reforms.'
This is the ultimate claim the author is trying to prove, functioning as the endpoint of the logical chain, signaled by 'it must be the case that'.
2
Analyze the structural role of the target statement: 'Consequently, the rapid adoption of this system could not have occurred through localized, grassroots consensus alone.'
The word 'Consequently' indicates this statement is a deduction (conclusion) drawn from the preceding sentences about intermixed landholdings requiring unprecedented coordination.
Structural indicator words reveal when a statement is meant to follow logically from evidence provided.
3
Determine the relationship between the target statement and the main conclusion.
The target statement acts as a premise for the main conclusion. By establishing that grassroots consensus was impossible, the author uses this fact—combined with the premise about ecclesiastical structures—to prove monastic involvement.
A statement that is supported by premises and in turn supports the main conclusion is, by definition, a subsidiary or intermediate conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 7Soru →

No matter how perfectly a silicon-based artificial intelligence mimics the synaptic routing of a human brain, it will never achieve genuine consciousness. Admittedly, many neuroscientists posit that human consciousness arises solely from the complex routing of electrical signals, a view implying that consciousness is entirely substrate-independent. If this structuralist view were accurate, a perfectly mapped silicon replica would indeed generate consciousness. However, recent evidence from quantum biology demonstrates that the specific biochemical material of the brain—specifically, the microtubules within neurons—plays an irreducible role in sustaining conscious states. This confirms that consciousness is inherently tethered to the biological substrate in which it originally emerged.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that consciousness is inherently tethered to the biological substrate in which it originally emerged?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is supported by recent evidence from quantum biology and that in turn provides support for the argument's opening claim.

Cevap

The correct answer describes the statement as an intermediate conclusion that connects the premise about quantum biology to the main conclusion about artificial intelligence.
The argument's ultimate point (the main conclusion) is stated in the very first sentence: a silicon-based AI will never achieve genuine consciousness. To prove this, the author provides evidence citing quantum biology findings about microtubules (a premise). From this premise, the author deduces that consciousness is tethered to its biological substrate (the target statement). Because this target statement is derived from a premise and is subsequently used to prove the main conclusion, it functions perfectly as an intermediate conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
The main conclusion is the first sentence: 'No matter how perfectly a silicon-based artificial intelligence mimics the synaptic routing of a human brain, it will never achieve genuine consciousness.'
This is the ultimate claim the author is trying to prove, and all other authorial statements are designed to support it.
2
Analyze the context and opposing viewpoint.
Sentences 2 and 3 describe the 'structuralist view' held by some neuroscientists, which claims consciousness is substrate-independent. The author ultimately disagrees with this view.
Understanding the opposing view helps isolate the author's actual argument structure.
3
Determine the relationship between the final two sentences.
The author introduces a premise about microtubules (Sentence 4) to prove the target statement (Sentence 5) that consciousness is tethered to a biological substrate.
The phrase 'This confirms that' indicates a conclusion is being drawn from the immediately preceding evidence.
4
Define the target statement's overall role.
Because the target statement is supported by a premise (microtubules) AND is used to support the main conclusion (silicon AI won't be conscious), it is an intermediate conclusion.
Statements that function as both a conclusion for one part of an argument and a premise for another are intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusions.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 8Soru →

Arrange the following five argumentative statements into their most logical sequence, proceeding from foundational evidence to the intermediate conclusion, through secondary evidence, and finally to the main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence begins with the foundational premises defining microlensing and its application to rogue planets, leads to the intermediate conclusion that this method allows detection of these planets, introduces the secondary premise about verifying theoretical models, and ends with the main conclusion advocating for survey funding.
A well-structured logical argument flows from basic factual premises to derived claims, and finally to the ultimate recommendation. In this sequence, the definition of microlensing and its application to rogue planets provide the factual basis. These facts support the intermediate conclusion that astronomers can detect these planets. This intermediate conclusion is then combined with the secondary premise about the importance of verifying theoretical models, ultimately justifying the main conclusion that funding for these surveys is crucial.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the primary premises that introduce the core physical concepts.
The statements defining microlensing and applying it to rogue planets form the initial evidential base.
Arguments must establish basic facts before drawing logical inferences from them.
2
Locate the intermediate conclusion derived directly from the primary premises.
The statement beginning with 'Consequently' serves as the intermediate conclusion, deducing that rogue planets can be detected based on the initial physical facts.
An intermediate conclusion synthesizes early evidence to create a new, derived premise for the rest of the argument.
3
Identify secondary premises that connect the intermediate conclusion to the final goal.
The statement explaining the importance of detecting these planets for verifying theoretical models bridges the gap to the final conclusion.
Additional context is needed to explain why the capability established in the intermediate conclusion matters.
4
Identify the main conclusion.
The normative statement beginning with 'Therefore' and advocating for survey funding is the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is the ultimate point of the argument, supported by all prior premises and intermediate conclusions.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 9Soru →

The city council recently passed a law heavily restricting commercial development in the historic downtown area. Because the historic downtown area has traditionally been the primary source of new commercial growth in the city, the total number of new businesses opening in the city will decrease significantly next year. As a result, the city's overall commercial tax revenue will almost certainly decline.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that the total number of new businesses opening in the city will decrease significantly next year?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a conclusion for which support is provided and which in turn is used to support the main conclusion of the argument.

Cevap

The statement acts as a conclusion for which support is provided (by the first two claims) and which is in turn used to support the main conclusion (that tax revenue will decline).
The correct answer accurately describes an intermediate conclusion. The statement is supported by the facts about the new law and the historic district's role in commercial growth. It then serves as the reason for the final claim that tax revenue will decline.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is 'the city's overall commercial tax revenue will almost certainly decline.'
This is the final point the author is trying to prove, signaled by the conclusion indicator 'As a result'.
2
Analyze the statement in question to determine how it relates to the rest of the argument.
The statement is supported by the preceding text and is used to support the main conclusion.
The word 'Because' indicates that the previous claims are premises supporting this statement. In turn, this statement leads to the final 'As a result' claim.
3
Define the structural role based on the analysis.
The structural role is an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.
Any claim that is both a conclusion of earlier premises and a premise for a later conclusion is an intermediate conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 10Soru →

Arrange the following argumentative statements into a logical sequence, starting with the primary factual evidence, moving through the intermediate conclusions, and ending with the final main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The logical sequence begins with the primary factual evidence (the structural assessment), which leads to the first intermediate conclusion (the risk of collapse). This vulnerability leads to a second intermediate conclusion (the building being unsafe), which ultimately supports the main prescriptive conclusion (the requirement to close the library).
A complete logical argument flows from unsupported factual premises to intermediate conclusions, culminating in the main conclusion. The structural assessment provides the foundational fact (cracks exist). The argument infers a physical consequence from this (risk of collapse). It then infers a practical implication of that consequence (unsafe for public use). Finally, it provides the ultimate prescriptive recommendation (close the library), which is supported by the entire chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The statement requiring the city to close the library is the main conclusion.
It uses the conclusion indicator 'Thus' and prescribes an ultimate action that the rest of the argument is built to support.
2
Identify the primary factual evidence (basic premise).
The statement regarding the structural assessment is the primary premise.
It states an independent, observed fact (severe foundation cracks) that does not rely on any other claim to be proven.
3
Order the intermediate conclusions to bridge the premise to the main conclusion.
The remaining statements flow logically from physical cause to safety effect: assessment -> risk of collapse -> unsafe for public use.
The cracks directly cause the risk of collapse. In turn, the risk of collapse is precisely what makes the building unsafe. This seamlessly connects the initial observation to the final closure mandate.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying basic premises, intermediate conclusions, and main conclusions to evaluate logical flow.
Soru 11Soru →

Paleontologists have long debated the function of the hyper-enlarged auditory bullae found in the extinct mammalian predator *Megistotherium*. Because these structures superficially resemble those of modern desert foxes, which utilize them to dissipate excess body heat, many have hypothesized a primarily thermoregulatory function. However, the *Megistotherium* bullae exhibit exceptionally thick bony walls that would have completely insulated any circulating blood. Thus, the hypothesis that the bullae functioned as a heat dissipation mechanism is untenable. Given that the only other known evolutionary advantage of such massively enlarged structures is the enhanced detection of low-frequency vibrations generated by distant prey, we can confidently infer that *Megistotherium* developed these structures specifically as hunting adaptations.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that the hypothesis that the bullae functioned as a heat dissipation mechanism is untenable?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is deduced from anatomical characteristics and functions to eliminate a competing explanation, thereby supporting the argument's primary conclusion.

Cevap

The correct option states that it is an intermediate conclusion deduced from anatomical characteristics that eliminates a competing explanation to support the primary conclusion.
The target statement is supported by the anatomical premise that the auditory bullae exhibit thick bony walls, which makes it a conclusion. However, it is not the final point of the argument. Instead, it is used to structurally rule out the thermoregulation hypothesis, allowing the author to conclude that the structures must be hunting adaptations. Therefore, it functions perfectly as an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is the final sentence: '*Megistotherium* developed these structures specifically as hunting adaptations.'
Locating the main conclusion provides the necessary reference point for determining the structural hierarchy of all other statements in the passage.
2
Analyze the logical relationships surrounding the target statement.
The target statement (that the heat dissipation hypothesis is untenable) is explicitly supported by the preceding sentence regarding thick bony walls ('However... Thus...').
A statement that receives logical support from another claim must be categorized structurally as a conclusion.
3
Determine the target statement's relationship to the main conclusion.
The target statement works in tandem with the premise about the 'only other known evolutionary advantage' to prove the main conclusion.
A conclusion that is subsequently used to support a further conclusion is defined as an intermediate, or subsidiary, conclusion.
4
Evaluate the answer choices based on the established structural role.
The correct description accurately identifies the statement as an intermediate conclusion that eliminates a competing explanation to support the primary conclusion.
Only one option correctly captures both the derived nature of the statement and its specific functional role in advancing the author's ultimate argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 12Soru →

Analyze the following argument concerning the Bronze Age collapse:

'Although historians frequently attribute the collapse of the Bronze Age societal network to a singular catastrophic event, such as a massive earthquake storm, this hypothesis is unsustainable. A singular catastrophic event would have caused simultaneous abandonment of urban centers across the Mediterranean. However, archaeological stratigraphy reveals that urban centers in the Levant were abandoned incrementally over a period of seventy years. Clearly, then, the systemic collapse was a protracted process rather than a sudden event. Furthermore, since protracted systemic collapses are invariably driven by interconnected economic disruptions rather than isolated natural disasters, the demise of the Bronze Age network must have been precipitated by a breakdown in international trade.'

Match each excerpted statement from the argument to the precise structural role it plays.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A singular catastrophic event would have caused simultaneous abandonment of urban centers across the Mediterranean.
Archaeological stratigraphy reveals that urban centers in the Levant were abandoned incrementally over a period of seventy years.
The systemic collapse was a protracted process rather than a sudden event.
The demise of the Bronze Age network must have been precipitated by a breakdown in international trade.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The conditional prediction about simultaneous abandonment outlines the consequences of the rejected hypothesis. The archaeological evidence of incremental abandonment serves as a primary premise. The claim that the collapse was a protracted process is an intermediate conclusion. The final claim regarding a breakdown in international trade is the main conclusion.
The argument utilizes a complex, multi-step structure. It begins by stating a hypothesis it intends to reject (singular event). It then establishes a testable implication of that hypothesis (simultaneous abandonment). By introducing primary factual evidence that contradicts this implication (incremental abandonment), the author derives an intermediate conclusion via Modus Tollens (the collapse was protracted, not sudden). Finally, applying a general principle about protracted collapses, the author uses the intermediate conclusion to deduce the main conclusion (the cause was a breakdown in international trade).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Locate the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is that the demise must have been precipitated by a breakdown in international trade.
This is the ultimate claim the author builds toward, combining a general principle about protracted collapses with a prior deduction.
2
Identify the intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion.
The intermediate conclusion is that the systemic collapse was a protracted process rather than a sudden event.
This statement is supported by physical evidence and is subsequently used as a premise to prove the main conclusion.
3
Identify the evidence used to support the intermediate conclusion.
The evidence is that archaeological stratigraphy reveals urban centers were abandoned incrementally.
This is a factual, undisputed premise that directly forces the conclusion that the process was protracted.
4
Determine the role of the hypothetical conditional claim.
The claim that a singular event would have caused simultaneous abandonment outlines the expected result of a sudden catastrophe.
It establishes the criteria necessary to falsify the prevailing hypothesis that the author wishes to discredit.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate conclusions and complex argument topology.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 13Soru →

An evolutionary biologist has outlined a comprehensive argument detailing the ecological success of the extinct flying reptile *Pteranodon*. Arrange the following argumentative claims into their proper logical sequence, beginning with the primary empirical evidence and progressing logically through each dependent intermediate deduction until reaching the ultimate main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence begins with the empirical evidence of fossilized bone tissue, followed by a chain of three successive intermediate conclusions (blood circulation, heat dissipation, and sustained flight capabilities), and culminates in the main conclusion regarding the species' broad ecological dominance.
The argument follows a strict chain of causality and inference. It moves from physical evidence (bone structure) to physiology (blood flow), to function (radiator), to behavioral advantage (sustained flight), and finally to ecological consequence (marine dominance). Each step relies on the specific concept introduced in the step before it.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational premise.
The statement describing the micro-structural analysis of the fossilized crests provides the undisputed empirical fact upon which the argument rests.
A logical argument must begin with evidence or foundational context that does not depend on the other statements.
2
Identify the primary intermediate conclusion.
The statement inferring that massive volumes of blood circulated beneath the skin follows directly from the evidence of vascularized bone tissue.
This is the most immediate logical leap from the physical evidence to physiological function, indicated by the phrase 'presence of this extensive internal network... strongly suggests'.
3
Chain the subsequent intermediate conclusions using referential indicators.
The deduction about heat dissipation ('Because of this substantial blood flow...') logically follows the blood circulation claim. In turn, the claim about sustaining flight ('This newly discovered thermoregulatory capacity...') follows from the ability to dissipate heat.
Each statement uses a structural indicator pronoun that requires the concept to be established in the immediately preceding claim.
4
Identify the main conclusion.
The statement concluding that the crest was the critical adaptation for ecosystem monopoly is the final endpoint of the argument.
This statement uses the indicator 'Ultimately' and represents the broadest claim, drawing upon the entire chain of physiological and behavioral deductions to make an ecological assertion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 14Soru →

Analyze the argument below. Match each statement from the argument to its corresponding structural role.

Philologists have traditionally classified the newly discovered Oakhaven runic script as a purely ceremonial alphabet used exclusively in religious rituals. However, this classification is almost certainly incorrect. Recent excavations at the Oakhaven site uncovered dozens of everyday commercial ledgers written entirely in this script. The presence of mundane transaction records demonstrates that the script was actually widely utilized for daily administrative and trade purposes. Because a script used for daily commerce must have been understood by a significant portion of the general populace, we can conclude that literacy in the Oakhaven region was much more widespread than previously believed.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The script was actually widely utilized for daily administrative and trade purposes.
Recent excavations at the Oakhaven site uncovered dozens of everyday commercial ledgers written entirely in this script.
Literacy in the Oakhaven region was much more widespread than previously believed.
The newly discovered Oakhaven runic script was a purely ceremonial alphabet used exclusively in religious rituals.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The statement about daily administrative use is the intermediate conclusion. The discovery of ledgers is the empirical evidence. The claim about widespread literacy is the ultimate conclusion. The ceremonial alphabet claim is the refuted traditional view.
The correct mapping identifies the hierarchical structure of the argument. The traditional view is presented only to be rejected. The archaeological discovery serves as foundational evidence (a premise), which logically leads to the intermediate conclusion that the script was used for daily commerce. This intermediate conclusion then serves as a premise supporting the final ultimate conclusion that literacy was widespread.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that literacy in the Oakhaven region was much more widespread than previously believed.
The phrase 'we can conclude that' points to the final claim derived from all the preceding context and evidence.
2
Identify the intermediate conclusion.
The intermediate conclusion is that the script was widely utilized for daily administrative and trade purposes.
It is supported by the ledger evidence ('demonstrates that') and acts as a premise for the final conclusion about literacy ('Because a script used for daily commerce...').
3
Identify the primary evidence.
The discovery of everyday commercial ledgers written in the script is the primary empirical evidence.
This is a direct factual observation that triggers the subsequent inferences in the argument.
4
Identify the opposing view.
The claim that the script was a purely ceremonial alphabet is a discredited hypothesis.
It is introduced as what philologists 'have traditionally classified' and is immediately challenged by the author stating 'this classification is almost certainly incorrect'.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate conclusions and mapping logical structures in multi-step arguments.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 15Soru →

Linguist: Creole languages emerge when groups lacking a common tongue are forced into prolonged contact. Notably, the syntax of early, first-generation creoles completely lacks the recursive structures characteristic of fully established languages. This demonstrates that the initial formation of a creole is driven strictly by immediate transactional necessity rather than an intrinsic drive for complex cognitive expression. However, when a creole is acquired by a subsequent generation as their native tongue, it rapidly develops these missing recursive features. Therefore, the activation of the human brain's full capacity for complex grammar requires the process of native language acquisition, not merely the pressure of basic communication.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the linguist's argument by the claim that the initial formation of a creole is driven strictly by immediate transactional necessity rather than an intrinsic drive for complex cognitive expression?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is derived from the observation about early creole syntax and serves to support the argument's overall conclusion.

Cevap

The statement acts as an intermediate conclusion. It is deduced from a premise and then used to support the final main conclusion.
The target statement is introduced by the phrase 'This demonstrates that', which clearly signals it is a deduction based on the preceding premise (that early creoles lack recursive structures). It is not the final point of the argument, however. The author uses this established point about 'immediate transactional necessity' to set up a contrast with subsequent generations, ultimately building toward the final main conclusion (signaled by 'Therefore') regarding native language acquisition. A statement that is supported by a premise and in turn supports the main conclusion is an intermediate conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is the final sentence: 'Therefore, the activation of the human brain's full capacity for complex grammar requires the process of native language acquisition...'
Finding the main conclusion first provides the anchor point for understanding how all other structural elements function.
2
Analyze the relationship between the target statement and the preceding sentence.
The preceding sentence states that early creoles lack recursive structures. The target statement begins with 'This demonstrates that...', showing it is a conclusion drawn from that fact.
This establishes that the target statement is a conclusion rather than a basic premise or background information.
3
Analyze the relationship between the target statement and the main conclusion.
The target statement establishes that basic communication needs only produce simple syntax. This contrasts with the subsequent generation's development of complex syntax, logically leading to the main conclusion.
Because the statement is a conclusion itself, but also supports a further conclusion, it is structurally an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 16Soru →

Behavioral Economist: In corporate retirement plans, participation rates soar when employees are automatically enrolled rather than required to actively opt in. Studies indicate that making enrollment the default drastically reduces the initial administrative effort required to start saving, while completely preserving the employees' freedom of choice to opt out later. Therefore, default enrollment policies effectively overcome the psychological inertia that typically prevents people from saving. Consequently, companies that truly wish to maximize their employees' long-term financial well-being must universally adopt automatic enrollment programs.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the behavioral economist's argument by the claim that default enrollment policies effectively overcome the psychological inertia that typically prevents people from saving?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion drawn from evidence about reduced administrative effort, which in turn is used to support the argument's ultimate recommendation.

Cevap

The correct option is the one stating that it is a subsidiary conclusion drawn from evidence about reduced administrative effort, which in turn is used to support the argument's ultimate recommendation.
The correct answer accurately captures the dual nature of the target claim. The word 'Therefore' indicates it is a conclusion supported by the preceding sentence (about reducing administrative effort). At the same time, it serves as the foundational reason for the final sentence ('Consequently, companies... must universally adopt...'). This makes it a subsidiary, or intermediate, conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is the final sentence: companies must universally adopt automatic enrollment programs to maximize financial well-being.
Finding the main conclusion provides the anchor for evaluating the structural role of all other statements in the stimulus.
2
Identify the primary premises serving as foundational evidence.
The foundational premise is that default enrollment reduces initial administrative effort while preserving freedom of choice.
We must locate the raw evidence that grounds the argument's claims.
3
Analyze the relationship between the target statement, the premises, and the main conclusion.
The target statement (default policies overcome psychological inertia) is a deduction drawn from the premise about reduced effort. In turn, this deduction provides the logical justification for the main conclusion.
This establishes the exact structural function of the claim in the argument's chain of reasoning.
4
Define the structural role based on the relationship analyzed in Step 3.
Because the statement is both supported by a premise and supports the main conclusion, its structural role is exactly that of a subsidiary (or intermediate) conclusion.
This directly answers the question stem and aligns with the correct option.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT | Examkin