Examkin

Assumptions

201 soru

Tüm türler201Çoktan seçmeli103Çoklu seçim31Doğru / Yanlış20Eşleştirme37Sıralama10
Soru 81Soru →

Historians recently discovered that medieval European towns with large centralized grain silos experienced significantly fewer winter disease outbreaks than towns with decentralized, individual storage. The historians concluded that the centralized storage system directly caused this improvement in public health.

Match each alternative explanation (causal objection) for this correlation with the specific defender assumption required to rule it out.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Wealthier towns, which could afford better overall sanitation, were the only communities that could afford to build centralized silos.
Communities that already enjoyed superior baseline health were the only ones capable of the intense coordinated labor needed to construct massive silos.
Towns with centralized silos happened to be located in colder, drier geographic regions where pathogens naturally struggle to survive.
During the period analyzed, the towns with centralized silos were subject to a strict trade embargo that prevented the arrival of foreign merchants.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings map each specific causal objection to the assumption that explicitly negates that possibility. The third-variable confounder (wealth and sanitation) is neutralized by assuming no superior hygiene systems existed. The reverse causality objection (pre-existing health causing the silos) is neutralized by assuming robust health was not the enabler. Geographic climate advantages are ruled out by assuming weather patterns were not inherently less hospitable to pathogens. Finally, trade embargoes (an independent concurrent factor) are ruled out by assuming the towns were not abnormally isolated.
In Logical Reasoning, when an author concludes that A causes B based purely on a correlation, they must implicitly assume that nothing else caused B (no alternate cause), B didn't cause A (no reverse causality), and no third variable caused both. Each correct matched pair actively defends the author's causal claim by systematically neutralizing one of these specific logical vulnerabilities.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core causal claim in the stimulus.
The author claims that building centralized grain silos (cause) directly reduced winter disease outbreaks (effect).
Understanding the precise causal relationship is necessary to identify vulnerabilities in the argument.
2
Analyze the first alternative explanation (wealth/sanitation) and match it to its defender assumption.
Matches with the assumption that negates the towns benefiting from superior hygiene systems.
This rules out the 'third-variable' confounder where a separate factor (wealth) caused both the silos and the better health.
3
Analyze the second alternative explanation (superior baseline health) and match it to its defender assumption.
Matches with the assumption that negates robust health being the primary enabler for constructing the facilities.
This rules out 'reverse causality', where the purported effect actually caused the purported cause.
4
Analyze the third alternative explanation (colder climates) and match it to its defender assumption.
Matches with the assumption that negates weather patterns being less hospitable to pathogens.
This rules out a natural baseline disparity that would make the correlation spurious.
5
Analyze the fourth alternative explanation (trade embargo) and match it to its defender assumption.
Matches with the assumption that negates abnormal isolation from external sources of infection.
This rules out an independent, coincidental event happening at the same time that could have prevented disease.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling out alternate explanations in causal arguments (Defender Assumptions)
Soru 82Soru →

A city council implemented a new tax on sugary drinks. One year later, the obesity rate in the city dropped by 5%. The council concluded that the sugary drink tax successfully caused the reduction in obesity.

Match each alternative explanation for the drop in obesity with the defender assumption that would logically neutralize it.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The city simultaneously launched a massive, free public gym program.
A severe economic recession made high-calorie fast food unaffordable for most residents.
The demographic makeup of the city changed, with an influx of young, active residents.
A popular new diet fad that strictly forbids all carbohydrates swept the city.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Each alternate explanation is matched with the statement that explicitly denies it, thereby defending the original argument.
Each matching pair correctly links a specific competing cause (on the left) with the assumption that explicitly eliminates that exact cause (on the right). Defender assumptions are logically necessary for a causal argument to survive when a plausible alternative explanation exists. By negating the alternate cause, the argument's original causal claim is protected.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core causal claim.
The argument claims the sugary drink tax (cause) led to the 5% drop in obesity (effect).
Understanding the main causal conclusion is necessary to see how alternate explanations threaten it.
2
Analyze the items on the left as logical threats.
Each left item presents a plausible alternate cause for the drop in obesity (gyms, recession, demographics, diet).
A causal argument is highly vulnerable to alternate causes; recognizing them is the first step in defending the argument.
3
Match each threat to its corresponding defender assumption.
left_1 pairs with right_3; left_2 pairs with right_4; left_3 pairs with right_1; left_4 pairs with right_2.
A defender assumption works by explicitly ruling out a specific alternate explanation. The items on the right perfectly negate the specific scenarios presented on the left.

Anahtar Kavram

Defender assumptions protect causal arguments by explicitly ruling out alternative explanations or competing causes.
Soru 83Soru →

An argument concludes that if the average water temperature of a coral reef rises by two degrees, the local marine biodiversity will decline drastically. The argument relies on explicit premises and one unstated sufficient assumption.

Arrange the following statements in a logical sequence to construct a continuous, valid deductive chain (A → B, B → C, C → D) that demonstrates how the sufficient assumption bridges the premises to logically guarantee the argument's final conclusion (A → D).

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence begins with the initial premise regarding the temperature rise, connects to the sufficient assumption about the bleaching event, proceeds to the final premise about biodiversity, and ends with the formal conclusion.
A valid deductive chain must link the sufficient condition of one statement to the necessary condition of the next. The sequence correctly begins with the initial premise (A → B), connects seamlessly to the sufficient assumption (B → C), moves to the final premise (C → D), and ultimately arrives at the logically guaranteed conclusion (A → D).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the logical components and assign variables to the conditions.
A: temperature rises, B: algae expelled, C: severe bleaching event, D: biodiversity declines.
Mapping the terms conceptually is necessary to see how the premises and the conclusion connect to each other.
2
Locate the starting premise of the deductive chain.
The statement 'If the average water temperature... rises... algae... will be expelled' represents A → B.
A continuous deductive chain must begin with the sufficient condition of the final conclusion.
3
Identify the sufficient assumption that bridges the gap.
The statement linking the expulsion of algae to a severe bleaching event represents B → C.
This assumption is strictly necessary to bridge the gap between the first premise's necessary condition and the second premise's sufficient condition.
4
Place the final premise and the derived conclusion.
The statement representing C → D is placed third, followed immediately by the conclusion A → D.
This completes the formal deductive sequence A → B → C → D, which mathematically proves that A → D must be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Constructing a continuous conditional logic chain to validate a sufficient assumption.
Soru 84Soru →

An AI researcher constructs an argument demonstrating that a new heuristic algorithm lacks artificial general intelligence (AGI). Arrange the following statements in the correct logical sequence to form a continuous deductive chain. Begin with the specific operational feature of the algorithm, follow with the general rule governing that feature, deduce the intermediate consequence, introduce the sufficient assumption (in conditional form) that bridges the final logical gap, and conclude with the main argument.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct deductive order begins with the specific premise, followed by the general rule, the intermediate conclusion, the sufficient assumption, and finally the main conclusion.
The correct sequence forms a valid formal logic chain. The specific feature combined with the general rule yields the intermediate conclusion (the system lacks autonomous intention). The sufficient assumption states that AGI requires autonomous intention. The contrapositive of this assumption means that lacking autonomous intention guarantees the system lacks AGI, which perfectly justifies the main conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the initial factual premise.
Select the statement establishing that the algorithm operates by optimizing pre-defined reward functions.
The prompt requires starting with the specific operational feature of the algorithm.
2
Identify the general conditional rule.
Select the statement linking the optimization of pre-defined reward functions to the inability to exhibit autonomous intention.
This general rule acts on the initial factual premise to enable a deduction.
3
Derive the intermediate conclusion.
Select the statement concluding the algorithm is incapable of exhibiting autonomous intention.
This is the logical deduction (Modus Ponens) generated by combining the first two statements.
4
Identify the sufficient assumption.
Select the conditional statement asserting that true AGI requires the capacity for autonomous intention.
The contrapositive of this assumption (no intention implies no AGI) is required to logically bridge the gap to the final conclusion.
5
Identify the main conclusion.
Select the statement concluding the algorithm cannot possess true AGI.
This is the final deduction drawn by applying the sufficient assumption to the intermediate conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions in Deductive Chains
Soru 85Soru →

Last month, a local restaurant replaced the fast-paced pop music playing in its dining area with slower classical music. Since this change, the average amount of money spent by each table has increased by 15 percent. The restaurant manager concludes that the switch to classical music is the primary cause of this increase in average spending.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The restaurant did not raise its menu prices at the time it switched to classical music.

Cevap

The restaurant did not raise its menu prices at the time it switched to classical music.
The manager concludes that there is a causal relationship between the new classical music and the 15 percent increase in average spending per table. For this causal claim to hold, the manager must assume that no other simultaneous change caused the spending increase. If the restaurant had simply raised the prices of its food and drinks at the exact same time it changed the music, the average bill per table would naturally go up, even if customers ordered the exact same amount of food. Therefore, ruling out a menu price increase is a logically necessary 'defender' assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and the premise of the argument.
Premise: The music changed and average spending increased by 15%. Conclusion: The music change caused the spending increase.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step to finding its logical gaps.
2
Determine the type of reasoning being used.
The manager is using causal reasoning, assuming that because two things happened at the same time, one caused the other.
Identifying causal reasoning alerts you to look for alternative causes or confounders.
3
Anticipate what a 'Defender' assumption must do in this context.
A necessary assumption must defend the conclusion by ruling out a plausible alternative explanation for why average spending per table increased.
To prove that music was the primary cause, the author implicitly assumes that other obvious causes are not responsible.
4
Apply the negation test to the correct option.
If the restaurant DID raise its menu prices by 15%, spending per table would automatically increase, completely destroying the claim that the music caused the increase.
The negation test confirms whether an assumption is truly necessary for the argument to survive.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Soru 86Soru →

A legal scholar argues: "Purely algorithmic decision-making systems, regardless of their processing complexity, cannot be held legally culpable for their outputs. After all, legal culpability requires the capacity for genuine moral deliberation, and such moral deliberation fundamentally necessitates subjective conscious experience on the part of the agent."

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn? Construct this sufficient assumption by arranging the statements below into a valid, continuous deductive chain bridging the argument's premises.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence begins with the nature of algorithmic systems (operating via deterministic state transitions), followed by the consequence of determinism (precluding non-programmed emergent behaviors), which in turn prevents a unified conscious perspective, and finally linking the lack of this perspective to the guaranteed absence of subjective conscious experience.
The correct logical order forms a perfect transitive chain that guarantees the conclusion. The argument requires a bridge proving that algorithmic systems lack subjective conscious experience. By starting with the nature of algorithmic systems and chaining through determinism, lack of emergent behaviors, and lack of a unified perspective, the final contrapositive link (that a unified perspective is an absolute prerequisite for subjective experience) perfectly supplies the missing sufficient condition.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument's existing premises and conclusion to isolate the logical gap.
The premises state: Legally Culpable -> Moral Deliberation -> Subjective Conscious Experience. The conclusion is: Algorithmic Systems -> NOT Legally Culpable. Taking the contrapositive of the premises yields: NOT Subjective Conscious Experience -> NOT Legally Culpable. Therefore, the missing sufficient assumption must prove that Algorithmic Systems -> NOT Subjective Conscious Experience.
Identifying the exact start and end points of the missing logical bridge is absolutely necessary before ordering the intermediate deductions.
2
Identify the starting statement of the deductive chain.
The chain must originate with the subject of the conclusion. The statement 'Purely algorithmic decision-making systems operate exclusively via deterministic state transitions' serves as this foundational starting anchor.
A valid transitive chain to prove 'A implies Z' must begin with 'A'.
3
Connect the intermediate logical consequences in order.
Next, operating via deterministic state transitions precludes non-programmed emergent behaviors. Following that, the lack of non-programmed emergent behaviors prevents a unified conscious perspective.
Continuous transitive chaining (A implies B, B implies C) ensures that the logical flow remains unbroken from the starting subject.
4
Identify the terminal link that connects back to the argument's premises.
The final statement notes that a unified conscious perspective is a prerequisite for subjective conscious experience. Logically, this means: Subjective Conscious Experience -> Unified Conscious Perspective. Its contrapositive dictates that lacking a unified conscious perspective guarantees a lack of subjective conscious experience, perfectly closing the gap.
Properly applying the contrapositive of a prerequisite condition completes the sufficient assumption chain.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions Using Transitive Logic Chains
Soru 87Soru →

According to the newly published guidelines from the city zoning board, a neighborhood can be officially designated as a 'quiet zone' only if it has absolutely no commercial businesses operating within its boundaries. The residents of the Maplewood neighborhood recently submitted an extensive application requesting this special designation. However, it is clear that the Maplewood neighborhood will not be designated as a 'quiet zone' this year.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: There is at least one commercial business currently operating within the boundaries of the Maplewood neighborhood.

Cevap

The assumption that there is at least one commercial business operating within the boundaries of the Maplewood neighborhood.
The argument provides a strict conditional rule: if a neighborhood is a 'quiet zone', then it has absolutely no commercial businesses operating within it. The conclusion states that Maplewood will not be a 'quiet zone'. To properly draw this conclusion, we must trigger the contrapositive of the rule: if a neighborhood DOES have a commercial business operating within it, it cannot be a 'quiet zone'. The correct answer perfectly supplies this missing fact by stating that Maplewood currently has at least one commercial business operating within its boundaries, which logically guarantees the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conditional requirement set by the zoning board.
A neighborhood is a 'quiet zone' only if it has no commercial businesses.
To understand the strict rule governing quiet zone designations in the stimulus.
2
Identify the author's main conclusion.
The Maplewood neighborhood will not be designated as a 'quiet zone'.
To determine what the argument is ultimately trying to prove.
3
Determine the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
To prove a neighborhood cannot be a quiet zone, we must show it fails the necessary condition (i.e., we must show it has at least one commercial business).
Sufficient assumption questions require an answer choice that guarantees the conclusion based on the rules established in the premises.
4
Evaluate the options to find the missing premise.
The correct option explicitly states that a commercial business operates within Maplewood.
This triggers the contrapositive of the rule, proving the conclusion with 100% certainty.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions via Contrapositive Logic
Soru 88Soru →

Match each argument (composed of a premise and a conclusion) with the sufficient assumption required to make its conclusion logically follow.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Premise: Every city official attended the seminar.
Conclusion: Every city official understands the new tax code.
Premise: The proposed legislation reduces carbon emissions.
Conclusion: The proposed legislation will receive the mayor's endorsement.
Premise: This novel features a highly complex plot.
Conclusion: This novel is likely to win the literary award.
Premise: The restaurant uses only locally sourced ingredients.
Conclusion: The restaurant provides a healthy dining option.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings connect the isolated premise concept in each argument to its isolated conclusion concept, ensuring strict deductive sufficiency.
Each correct pairing directly connects the specific evidence provided in the premise to the specific claim made in the conclusion. Because these are straightforward conditional arguments, the sufficient assumption in each case takes the form 'If [Premise Concept], then [Conclusion Concept]', which logically guarantees that the conclusion follows from the premise.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first argument to identify the premise and the conclusion.
Premise: City officials -> attended seminar. Conclusion: City officials -> understand tax code.
Identifying the distinct components is necessary to find the logical gap.
2
Determine the logical gap for the first argument.
The gap is between 'attended the seminar' and 'understands the new tax code'.
A sufficient assumption must link the unconnected premise term directly to the unconnected conclusion term.
3
Find the assumption that bridges the gap for the first argument.
The assumption 'Anyone who attended the seminar understands the new tax code' bridges this gap perfectly.
This establishes the conditional relationship needed to guarantee the conclusion.
4
Repeat this process for the remaining three arguments.
The logical gaps are: emissions to endorsement, complex plot to winning the award, and locally sourced ingredients to healthy dining.
Each argument follows a simple A -> B, B -> C structure requiring the B -> C bridge.

Anahtar Kavram

A sufficient assumption provides the missing logical link that, when added to the premises, guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 89Soru →

Records from the coastal region of Veltierra show that over the last twenty years, the rate of structural failure among seawalls constructed using a newly introduced synthetic material, Duracrete, is significantly higher than the structural failure rate for seawalls built with traditional concrete during the exact same period. Based on these records, a civil engineering task force concluded that Duracrete is inherently less resilient to Veltierra's corrosive marine environment than traditional concrete is.

The task force's conclusion depends on which one of the following assumptions?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The seawalls constructed with Duracrete were not predominantly placed in areas of Veltierra's coast that are subjected to significantly harsher physical marine conditions than the areas where the traditional concrete seawalls were located.

Cevap

The assumption that Duracrete seawalls were not subjected to harsher physical marine conditions than traditional concrete seawalls.
This option provides a classic Defender Assumption by ruling out a critical alternate explanation. The stimulus observes a correlation between a material (Duracrete) and a higher failure rate, concluding that the material is the cause. However, if the Duracrete seawalls were built in much harsher locations (e.g., facing open ocean storms while traditional walls were in sheltered bays), location would be the cause of the failures, not the material. By stating that this alternate scenario did NOT happen, this option defends the argument's causal claim. Using the Negation Technique: If the Duracrete seawalls *were* placed in significantly harsher conditions, the task force's conclusion falls apart.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument's premises and conclusion.
Premise: Duracrete seawalls have a higher failure rate than traditional concrete seawalls over the last 20 years. Conclusion: Duracrete is inherently less resilient to the marine environment.
Understanding the exact structural gap between the evidence provided and the claim being made is the first step in evaluating any logical reasoning question.
2
Determine the type of argument and spot potential flaws.
This is a causal argument based on a correlation. It assumes that the material (Duracrete) is the sole cause of the higher failure rate.
Causal arguments based on observational data are always vulnerable to alternate explanations (third variables or confounders).
3
Anticipate necessary 'Defender' assumptions.
To protect the conclusion, the author must assume that other potential causes for the higher failure rate are not present. One major alternate cause would be if the Duracrete seawalls were subjected to rougher waves or worse weather.
A defender assumption works by actively eliminating a competing explanation that would otherwise destroy the argument's causal link.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to the best candidate.
Negating the correct option yields: 'Duracrete seawalls WERE predominantly placed in areas subjected to significantly harsher conditions.' If this is true, the harsher conditions explain the failures, destroying the conclusion that the material itself is to blame. Therefore, the original statement is a necessary assumption.
The Negation Technique is the definitive test for a Necessary Assumption. If the negated form of an option destroys the argument, that option is the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)
Soru 90Soru →

A biological organism possesses phenomenal consciousness only if it can encode episodic memories of its surroundings. Field observations establish that cephalopods, particularly octopuses, consistently demonstrate multi-stage problem-solving behaviors when navigating novel enclosures. Therefore, it follows that octopuses must be capable of encoding episodic memories of their surroundings.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Every organism that demonstrates multi-stage problem-solving behaviors possesses phenomenal consciousness.

Cevap

The statement that every organism demonstrating multi-stage problem-solving behaviors possesses phenomenal consciousness.
The argument relies on two key premises: (1) Phenomenal consciousness is required for episodic memory (Consciousness -> Memory), and (2) octopuses exhibit multi-stage problem-solving (Octopus -> Problem-Solving). The conclusion asserts that octopuses have episodic memory (Octopus -> Memory). To make this logically valid, we must guarantee that octopuses have phenomenal consciousness. The correct answer provides the exact missing link by establishing that problem-solving behavior guarantees phenomenal consciousness (Problem-Solving -> Consciousness). Adding this premise completes the logical chain: Octopus -> Problem-Solving -> Consciousness -> Memory, fully justifying the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: Octopuses are capable of encoding episodic memories.
This is the final claim the argument attempts to prove, signaled by 'Therefore'.
2
Map the conditional relationships in the premises.
Premise 1: Phenomenal Consciousness -> Episodic Memories. Premise 2: Octopuses -> Problem-Solving Behaviors.
Mapping the premises reveals the existing logical links and highlights the gap.
3
Determine the missing link required to justify the conclusion.
The argument needs to prove Octopuses -> Episodic Memories. To connect the premises into a valid chain, we must bridge Problem-Solving Behaviors to Phenomenal Consciousness.
If Problem-Solving -> Consciousness is assumed, the chain becomes: Octopuses -> Problem-Solving -> Consciousness -> Episodic Memories. This perfectly guarantees the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption Conditional Bridging
Soru 91Soru →

An artificial intelligence cannot truly understand human emotional responses unless it is capable of experiencing somatic markers—the physical sensations that accompany emotional states in biological organisms. Because no currently existing silicon-based neural network possesses the biological hardware necessary to generate somatic markers, it is clear that no existing silicon-based neural network can effectively replicate human empathy. After all, complex cognitive states depend heavily on their underlying physical architecture.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any artificial intelligence that can effectively replicate human empathy is able to truly understand human emotional responses.

Cevap

The correct answer provides the conditional rule: Any artificial intelligence that can effectively replicate human empathy is able to truly understand human emotional responses.
The argument concludes that silicon networks cannot replicate empathy because they lack somatic markers. The premises only establish that lacking somatic markers prevents an AI from understanding emotions. To logically guarantee the conclusion, we must assume that failing to understand emotions completely prevents an AI from replicating empathy. The correct answer provides the exact contrapositive of this necessary link: if an AI can replicate empathy, it must be able to understand emotions.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the premises of the argument into conditional logic.
Premise 1: Understand Emotions -> Somatic Markers. Premise 2: Silicon Network -> ~Somatic Markers.
Mapping the established facts is required to see what can be proven before examining the conclusion.
2
Determine the deductive inference derived from the premises.
Silicon Network -> ~Somatic Markers -> ~Understand Emotions.
By chaining the premises and their contrapositives, we establish exactly what is already proven: Silicon networks cannot understand emotions.
3
Identify the main conclusion and isolate the logical gap.
Conclusion: Silicon Network -> ~Replicate Empathy. The gap is between '~Understand Emotions' (proven) and '~Replicate Empathy' (unproven).
A sufficient assumption must mathematically bridge the gap between what the premises prove and the new claim made in the conclusion.
4
Formulate the required assumption to bridge the gap.
We need the rule: ~Understand Emotions -> ~Replicate Empathy. The contrapositive of this rule is: Replicate Empathy -> Understand Emotions.
Adding this exact rule to our premises will logically force the conclusion to be true 100% of the time.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 92Soru →

A comprehensive analysis of fossilized hominid dental remains from the Pleistocene epoch reveals a distinct pattern: populations residing in high-altitude environments exhibited significantly greater enamel thickness compared to their low-altitude contemporaries. Because thicker enamel provides increased resistance to the rapid abrasive wear caused by masticating tough, fibrous vegetation, anthropologists conclude that the harsh conditions of high-altitude environments must have forced these hominids to rely heavily on such vegetation for their caloric needs.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the anthropologists' argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The greater enamel thickness observed in the high-altitude hominids was not a physiological byproduct of biological adaptations necessary for surviving in lower-oxygen environments.

Cevap

The argument assumes that the greater enamel thickness observed in the high-altitude hominids was not a physiological byproduct of biological adaptations necessary for surviving in lower-oxygen environments.
The argument concludes that a dietary need (relying on fibrous vegetation) caused an evolutionary trait (thicker enamel) simply because the trait is useful for that diet. This is a causal claim based on an observed physical characteristic. For this conclusion to be logically sound, the author must assume that there is no other, non-dietary cause responsible for the thicker enamel in these specific high-altitude hominids. The correct answer acts as a 'defender' by ruling out an alternate physiological cause (low-oxygen adaptation). If we negate this statement—meaning the thicker enamel *was* merely a biological byproduct of low-oxygen adaptation—the dietary conclusion falls apart completely.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus structure.
Premise: High-altitude hominids had thicker enamel, which resists wear from fibrous vegetation. Conclusion: High-altitude environments forced reliance on fibrous vegetation.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to identify the logical gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
2
Determine the author's causal claim.
The author claims that a dietary requirement (reliance on fibrous plants) caused the evolutionary adaptation (thicker enamel).
Understanding the direction of causation highlights potential vulnerabilities, such as alternate explanations for the physical adaptation.
3
Apply the Negation Test to find the necessary defender assumption.
If the thicker enamel WAS a physiological byproduct of adapting to lower-oxygen environments, then the cause of the adaptation was respiratory/metabolic, not dietary. This completely invalidates the anthropologists' conclusion.
A necessary assumption is one that, if proven false, causes the argument's logic to collapse entirely.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumption)
Soru 93Soru →

In the 1920s, several textile factories switched their primary power source from steam engines to newly available electric motors. Over the following year, the factories that made this switch reported a substantial drop in the rate of workplace accidents. Based on this record, labor historians concluded that electric motors are inherently safer to operate than steam-powered machinery.

The labor historians' argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The drop in the accident rate was not primarily due to the replaced steam-powered machinery being excessively old and prone to malfunction.

Cevap

The option stating that the drop in the accident rate was not primarily due to the replaced steam-powered machinery being excessively old and prone to malfunction.
The argument observes a chronological correlation between a change (switching to electric motors) and an effect (fewer accidents), concluding that the electric motors themselves are inherently safer. For this specific causal conclusion to hold, the argument relies on a defender assumption: it must rule out alternative factors that could have caused the drop in accidents. If the steam machinery being replaced was simply old and deteriorating, then replacing it with any brand-new equipment would have improved safety. Thus, the argument must logically assume that the age and poor condition of the old machinery was not the primary cause of the improved safety record.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and conclusion.
Premise: Factories saw a drop in accidents after switching from steam to electric power. Conclusion: Electric motors are inherently safer than steam machinery.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to expose the gap between the evidence provided and the causal claim made.
2
Analyze the causal reasoning and identify potential confounding variables.
The argument assumes that the change in power source caused the safety improvement, ignoring other differences between the old and new setups.
Causal conclusions based on correlational or chronological evidence are vulnerable to alternate explanations.
3
Apply the negation test to the answer choices to find the defender assumption.
Negating the correct option reveals that if the accident drop was actually due to the old machinery being worn out, then replacing it with ANY new machine (even steam) would have reduced accidents. This destroys the claim that electric motors are INHERENTLY safer.
A necessary assumption is one that, if proven false, causes the argument's conclusion to collapse.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations in Causal Arguments
Soru 94Soru →

Read the following argument:

Recently, a major commercial airline switched from standard aluminum cargo containers to containers made from a newly developed carbon composite. In the first year of using the composite containers, the airline reported a 12 percent reduction in overall fuel consumption per flight. The airline's management concluded that the lighter weight of the new composite containers caused the reduction in fuel consumption.

Statement: For the management's conclusion to be logically drawn, the argument must assume that the airline did not simultaneously implement new fuel-efficient flight routing procedures during that same year.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The correct evaluation is True. The argument concludes that one specific change (composite containers) caused an observed effect (fuel reduction). For this causal claim to be logically sound, the argument must defend itself against alternative explanations. Asserting that a different fuel-saving measure (new routing procedures) did not occur is a necessary 'defender' assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the argument.
Premise: New composite containers were introduced, and fuel consumption dropped by 12 percent. Conclusion: The new containers caused the drop in fuel consumption.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to identify the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion.
2
Identify the type of reasoning being used.
The argument uses causal reasoning based on a chronological correlation (event A happened, then event B happened, so event A caused event B).
Recognizing causal reasoning highlights its inherent vulnerability: the possibility of alternative causes.
3
Evaluate the proposed assumption statement using the Negation Test.
Negated statement: 'The airline DID simultaneously implement new fuel-efficient flight routing procedures.'
The Negation Test determines if an assumption is strictly necessary. If negating the assumption destroys the argument, the assumption is necessary.
4
Determine the impact of the negated statement on the conclusion.
If new fuel-efficient routing procedures were implemented, they provide a strong alternative explanation for the 12 percent fuel reduction, destroying the conclusion that the containers alone caused it.
Because the negated statement destroys the argument, the original statement (ruling out the alternative cause) is a logically necessary defender assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Soru 95Soru →

If agricultural yields are to be sustained over the next century, topsoil erosion must be drastically reduced. Drastically reducing topsoil erosion requires the widespread adoption of no-till farming techniques. The government’s new agricultural subsidy program will ensure the widespread adoption of these no-till techniques. Therefore, the new subsidy program will guarantee that agricultural yields are sustained over the next century.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The widespread adoption of no-till farming techniques is sufficient to guarantee that agricultural yields are sustained over the next century.

Cevap

The statement that the widespread adoption of no-till farming techniques is sufficient to guarantee that agricultural yields are sustained.
The correct answer provides the exact logical bridge needed to complete the argument's chain. The premises establish that the subsidy program will lead to no-till farming. By adding the assumption that no-till farming guarantees sustained agricultural yields, the conclusion (that the subsidy program guarantees sustained yields) is mathematically forced to be true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional logic of the premises.
Premise 1: Sustained Yields -> Reduce Erosion. Premise 2: Reduce Erosion -> No-Till Farming. Premise 3: Subsidy Program -> No-Till Farming.
To identify the structural elements the author provides to build the argument.
2
Identify the conclusion and compare it to the premises.
Conclusion: Subsidy Program -> Sustained Yields. The premises only establish that the Subsidy Program leads to No-Till Farming.
To pinpoint the exact logical leap the author makes.
3
Determine the missing link required to justify the conclusion.
The argument needs a rule connecting the result of the program (No-Till Farming) to the desired outcome (Sustained Yields). The missing link is: No-Till Farming -> Sustained Yields.
Because if No-Till Farming guarantees Sustained Yields, the chain (Subsidy Program -> No-Till Farming -> Sustained Yields) is complete and valid.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions in Formal Logic Chains
Soru 96Soru →

A five-year epidemiological study tracked the neurological health and self-selected dietary habits of two large cohorts of elderly individuals. Cohort A maintained diets highly concentrated in flavonoid-rich berries, while Cohort B consumed diets nearly devoid of them. At the conclusion of the study, Cohort A exhibited a statistically significant lower rate of age-related cognitive decline than Cohort B. Because the researchers rigorously controlled for baseline neurological health at the study's onset, as well as for genetic predispositions and overall cardiovascular fitness, they concluded that the regular consumption of flavonoid-rich berries actively impedes neurological degradation.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the researchers' argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Experiencing the onset of age-related cognitive decline does not alter an individual's dietary preferences in a way that leads them to avoid flavonoid-rich berries.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that experiencing the onset of age-related cognitive decline does not alter an individual's dietary preferences in a way that leads them to avoid flavonoid-rich berries.
This is a classic Defender Assumption that rules out reverse causality. The argument observes a correlation over a five-year period between eating berries and retaining cognitive function, concluding that the berries protect the brain. However, it is possible that as individuals naturally began to experience cognitive decline during the study, they lost their appetite for these berries (placing them in Cohort B). If cognitive decline causes the avoidance of berries, the argument's causal arrow is completely backward. By assuming this reverse causal mechanism does NOT happen, the argument defends its conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's conclusion and premises.
Conclusion: Regular consumption of flavonoid-rich berries actively impedes neurological degradation. Premises: A cohort eating these berries showed less cognitive decline over five years compared to a cohort that did not, with baseline health, genetics, and fitness controlled.
Deconstructing the argument isolates the core causal claim from the background evidence.
2
Analyze the reasoning structure and identify vulnerabilities.
The argument infers causation (berries cause less decline) purely from a correlation over time. Even with baseline controls, the correlation could be the result of reverse causality occurring during the five-year tracking period.
Causal conclusions drawn from observational studies always assume that the observed relationship is not coincidental, not caused by a third variable, and not operating in the reverse direction.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the choices to find the necessary Defender assumption.
Negating the correct option yields: 'Experiencing the onset of age-related cognitive decline DOES alter an individual's dietary preferences in a way that leads them to avoid flavonoid-rich berries.'
A necessary assumption is one that, if proven false, destroys the argument. If the negated statement is true, the cognitive decline caused the lack of berries in Cohort B, completely destroying the researchers' conclusion that the lack of berries caused the cognitive decline.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender) - Reverse Causation
Soru 97Soru →

In a recent study of elementary school students, researchers found that children who play a musical instrument score significantly higher on math tests than children who do not. Based on this finding, the researchers concluded that learning to play a musical instrument improves a child's mathematical ability.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the researchers' argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Children who possess high mathematical ability are not simply more likely to choose to play a musical instrument than children who do not.

Cevap

The argument requires the assumption that children who possess high mathematical ability are not simply more likely to choose to play a musical instrument than children who do not.
The argument assumes a causal relationship (playing an instrument leads to better math scores) based solely on a correlation between the two. For this specific causal claim to be valid, the author must implicitly assume that the causal relationship does not run in the opposite direction. If it were true that children who already have high math ability are simply more drawn to playing musical instruments, it would fully explain the correlation without the instrument actually improving their math skills. Therefore, the argument logically requires the assumption that this reverse causation is not occurring.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core premise and conclusion.
Premise: There is a correlation between playing a musical instrument and scoring higher on math tests. Conclusion: Learning to play an instrument causes an improvement in mathematical ability.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step in evaluating its logical gaps.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the reasoning.
The argument takes a mere correlation and concludes a specific causal direction (Instrument -> Math Ability), failing to account for alternative explanations.
Causal conclusions based on correlations are inherently flawed because they fail to account for reverse causation or third-variable causes.
3
Determine what the author must assume for the argument to be logically sound.
The author must assume that the correlation is not caused by the reverse relationship (Math Ability -> Instrument) or by an outside factor.
If reverse causation were true, the conclusion would fall apart. Therefore, its absence is a logically necessary assumption for the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling out reverse causation in causal arguments
Soru 98Soru →

In Logical Reasoning, the Negation Technique is used to test whether an assumption is truly necessary for an argument to hold. This technique requires accurately forming the logical negation of a candidate assumption statement. Match each assumption statement below with its exact logical negation.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

All successful entrepreneurs are risk-takers.
Some new tax policies are beneficial.
No seasoned investors ignore market trends.
If the interest rate rises, inflation will decrease.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings are: 'All...' negates to 'At least one... is not...'; 'Some...' negates to 'No...'; 'No...' negates to 'At least one... is...'; and 'If A, then B' negates to 'A happens and B does not'.
Each assumption statement has been paired with its exact logical contradictory. A mathematically sound negation covers all remaining logical possibilities without going too far. For example, the negation of an 'all' claim simply requires one counterexample, and the negation of a conditional claim shows the sufficient condition occurring without the necessary condition.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the quantifier or logical structure in the first statement: 'All successful entrepreneurs...'
It is a universal affirmative. The exact logical negation is 'Not all' or 'At least one is not'. Match with 'At least one successful entrepreneur is not a risk-taker.'
Negating 'All' does not mean 'None'; it merely requires a single counterexample to make the original statement false.
2
Identify the quantifier in the second statement: 'Some new tax policies...'
It is an existential affirmative. The exact logical negation is 'None'. Match with 'No new tax policies are beneficial.'
If it is false that 'some' (at least one) policy is beneficial, then zero policies are beneficial.
3
Identify the quantifier in the third statement: 'No seasoned investors...'
It is a universal negative. The exact logical negation is 'Some' or 'At least one'. Match with 'At least one seasoned investor ignores market trends.'
If it is false that 'no one' does something, it must mean that at least one person does it.
4
Identify the logical structure of the fourth statement: 'If the interest rate rises...'
It is a conditional statement. The exact logical negation is that the trigger happens but the result does not. Match with 'The interest rate rises, and inflation does not decrease.'
A conditional statement is only violated when the sufficient condition (the 'if' clause) is met, but the necessary condition (the 'then' clause) fails to occur.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical negation involves producing a statement that must be false when the original is true, and must be true when the original is false, without overreaching.
Soru 99Soru →

Under current legal frameworks, a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) can be held legally liable for damages only if it features either a central executive committee or a pre-coded compensation fund. The Aetherium Network is a DAO that was recently held legally liable for damages by a federal court. However, an exhaustive audit of the network's architecture proves that it lacks any pre-coded compensation fund. Therefore, it is clear that the Aetherium Network must utilize a weighted-voting governance protocol.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any decentralized autonomous organization that possesses a central executive committee utilizes a weighted-voting governance protocol.

Cevap

The option stating that any decentralized autonomous organization possessing a central executive committee utilizes a weighted-voting governance protocol.
The argument establishes an intermediate conclusion: because the DAO is liable and lacks a compensation fund, it MUST have a central executive committee. However, the author suddenly concludes the DAO has a weighted-voting protocol. To justify this leap, we need a rule stating that having a central executive committee guarantees the use of a weighted-voting protocol. The correct answer provides exactly this universal conditional link.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional rule provided in the first sentence.
Rule: If a DAO is legally liable, it must have a Central Executive Committee (CEC) OR a Pre-coded Compensation Fund (PCF).
Identifying the formal logic relationships is the first step in deduction.
2
Apply the facts about the Aetherium Network to the conditional rule.
Fact 1: Aetherium is legally liable. Deduction: Aetherium has a CEC or a PCF. Fact 2: Aetherium lacks a PCF. Deduction: Aetherium MUST have a CEC.
This establishes an unstated intermediate conclusion that is critical to the argument.
3
Identify the argument's final conclusion and the logical gap.
Conclusion: Aetherium utilizes a weighted-voting governance protocol (WVGP). The gap is between the intermediate conclusion (Aetherium has a CEC) and the final conclusion (Aetherium has a WVGP).
To find a sufficient assumption, you must pinpoint exactly where the author's logic jumps to an unsupported claim.
4
Formulate the sufficient assumption that bridges the gap.
Required Assumption: If a DAO has a CEC, then it utilizes a WVGP (CEC -> WVGP).
Connecting the established fact (CEC) to the unsupported conclusion (WVGP) logically forces the conclusion to be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate conclusions to find the missing sufficient condition that logically guarantees the final conclusion.
Soru 100Soru →

Match each argument (stimulus) with the supporter assumption that is necessary to bridge the logical gap between its premise and its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The proposed community center will feature state-of-the-art recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed community center will improve the overall health of the neighborhood.
The author's latest book employs a highly unconventional narrative structure. Thus, the author's latest book will be praised by literary critics.
The new manufacturing process reduces the use of synthetic chemicals by half. Consequently, the new manufacturing process is better for the local environment.
The company's customer service hotline is now available 24 hours a day. As a result, the company's customer retention rate will significantly increase.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Pair the community center argument with the health assumption, the author's book argument with the literary critics assumption, the manufacturing process argument with the environment assumption, and the hotline argument with the retention assumption.
In each case, the correct assumption functions as a required bridge that connects the new 'rogue' term in the conclusion back to the evidence provided in the premise. Without these bridges, the conclusions remain completely unsupported.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premise and the conclusion in each argument.
Each argument contains a premise (evidence) and a conclusion that introduces a new, unstated concept known as the 'rogue' element.
Finding the new concept in the conclusion is the first step in identifying a missing supporter assumption.
2
Determine the exact logical gap for each argument.
The gaps are: recreational facilities to health, unconventional structure to critic praise, fewer synthetic chemicals to better environment, and 24-hour hotline to higher retention.
A supporter assumption must explicitly connect the evidence in the premise to the new claim in the conclusion.
3
Select the assumption that links the premise concept directly to the conclusion concept.
The matching assumptions form direct 'If Premise, then Conclusion' bridges.
This completes the logical structure, validating each argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions
ÖncekiSayfa 5 / 11Sonraki