Examkin

Assumptions

201 soru

Tüm türler201Çoktan seçmeli103Çoklu seçim31Doğru / Yanlış20Eşleştirme37Sıralama10
Soru 101Soru →

A linguist is arguing that a newly discovered dialect should be classified as a distinct language. The linguist's initial premise is that 'the new dialect shifts the core phonetic boundaries of the original language.' The final conclusion is that 'the new dialect must be classified as a distinct language.'

To make this argument logically valid, a series of sufficient assumptions must be added to form a complete deductive chain. Arrange the following assumptions in the correct logical sequence so that each statement's sufficient condition is established by the necessary condition of the previous step (or the initial premise), ultimately guaranteeing the final conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence logically chains from the initial premise to the final conclusion by matching each sufficient condition to the preceding necessary condition: Shifting phonetic boundaries -> Prevents mutual intelligibility -> Disrupts cultural transmission -> Fails to preserve identity -> Classified as a distinct language.
The correct logical order effectively maps out a sequence of conditional statements forming a transitive formal logic bridge (A -> B, B -> C, C -> D, D -> E). When placed in this exact sequence, these statements form a complete deductive bridge that perfectly justifies the final conclusion that the dialect must be classified as a distinct language.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the starting premise and final conclusion.
Premise: shifts phonetic boundaries. Conclusion: classified as distinct language.
Establishing the endpoints is required to construct a valid deductive chain.
2
Find the assumption that connects directly to the initial premise.
The statement 'Any dialect that shifts the core phonetic boundaries...' takes the premise and yields 'prevents mutual intelligibility'.
This is the only statement whose sufficient condition matches the given starting point.
3
Chain the subsequent statements by matching necessary conditions to sufficient conditions.
Prevents mutual intelligibility -> Disrupts cultural transmission. Then, Disrupts cultural transmission -> Fails to preserve identity.
Valid formal logic requires transitivity (If A then B, if B then C, if C then D).
4
Ensure the final necessary condition matches the final conclusion.
The statement 'Any dialect that fails to preserve the fundamental identity... must be classified as a distinct language' closes the gap.
This completes the sufficient assumption chain, strictly guaranteeing the truth of the argument's conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging formal logic gaps using a chain of sufficient assumptions (transitive property of conditionals).
Soru 102Soru →

Read the following argument and evaluate the subsequent statement.

Historian: During the 1880s, the National Telegraph Company's adoption of the duplex telegraph system—which permitted simultaneous bidirectional transmission—coincided with a 30 percent reduction in garbled dispatches. Clearly, the continuous electrical current required by the duplex system actively suppressed the ambient magnetic interference that typically causes signal degradation.

Statement: A necessary assumption of the historian's argument is that the installation of the duplex telegraph system did not simultaneously require replacing the company's existing unshielded wires with heavily insulated cables.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is True because it correctly identifies a necessary defender assumption. The argument claims a specific mechanism (continuous current) caused a specific result (suppressed interference). To defend this precise causal claim against alternative causes, the argument must assume that no other interference-suppressing mechanism—such as heavily insulated cables—was introduced at the exact same time.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure and causal claim.
Premise: Adoption of the duplex system coincided with fewer errors. Conclusion: The continuous electrical current of the duplex system suppressed magnetic interference.
Understanding the exact mechanism the author credits (the continuous current) is essential for identifying vulnerabilities in the reasoning.
2
Identify the logical gap.
The argument assumes that a correlation (duplex installation and error reduction) implies a very specific causation, ignoring other factors that might have been introduced during the installation process.
Causal arguments based on correlation are inherently vulnerable to alternate explanations, requiring 'defender' assumptions to rule them out.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the provided statement.
Negated statement: The installation of the duplex telegraph system DID simultaneously require replacing the company's existing unshielded wires with heavily insulated cables.
The Negation Technique is the definitive logical test for necessary assumptions on the LSAT.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the conclusion.
If heavily insulated cables were installed simultaneously, the physical insulation provides a superior alternative explanation for the suppression of magnetic interference, thereby destroying the historian's claim that the continuous current was responsible.
A statement whose logical opposite destroys the argument is, by definition, a logically necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions) and the Negation Technique
Soru 103Soru →

Analyze each of the following logical arguments. Match each argument to the specific sufficient assumption that, if added to its premises, strictly and logically guarantees the truth of its main conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The city council's controversial proposal to ban heavy commercial vehicles in the downtown district will drastically reduce peak-hour traffic congestion. Transportation analysts agree that if traffic congestion is drastically reduced in this manner, overall pedestrian safety will reach historically high levels. Therefore, implementing this proposal ensures that the downtown district will soon experience a significant surge in retail business.
The company's regional branch offices will definitively not be consolidated. After all, the board of directors will approve the highly anticipated corporate merger only if the external auditor's financial forecast predicts significant quarterly growth for the upcoming fiscal year. The recently released financial forecast by the external auditors explicitly does not predict such growth.
Most academic historians who study ancient agrarian societies focus primarily on calculating fluctuating agricultural yields. It is therefore certain that at least some historians who study ancient agrarian societies completely overlook the economic importance of early trade networks. This follows because sociological research demonstrates that some scholars who focus primarily on agricultural yields completely overlook this broader economic importance.
Extensive laboratory testing has demonstrated that reducing oxidative stress generally promotes long-term cellular longevity in mice. Administering a diet rich in synthetic antioxidants effectively reduces oxidative stress in these subjects, but it concurrently inhibits the natural production of critical enzymes regulating basic cellular metabolism. Therefore, feeding laboratory mice a diet rich in synthetic antioxidants will ultimately decrease their overall lifespans.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The public policy argument matches with the safety-to-retail bridge. The corporate merger argument matches with the requirement of board approval for consolidation. The historian argument matches with the universal 'every scholar' claim. The laboratory mice argument matches with the assumption that enzyme inhibition overrides longevity benefits.
The correct matches successfully pair each flawed stimulus with the exact sufficient assumption needed to repair its logic. This involves identifying unstated links between intermediate and main conclusions, tracing formal contrapositives, securing universal quantifier bridges, and establishing definitive dominance in competing causal scenarios.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the intermediate-to-main gap in the public policy argument regarding traffic.
The argument establishes that banning vehicles leads to pedestrian safety. It concludes this leads to a retail surge. The required gap is 'Pedestrian Safety -> Retail Surge'.
To guarantee the final conclusion, the established intermediate conclusion must be sufficient to trigger the main conclusion.
2
Diagram the conditional logic in the corporate merger argument.
Premises dictate: Approve -> Growth, and ~Growth. Inference: ~Approve. Conclusion: ~Consolidate. The required assumption to bridge the inference and conclusion is ~Approve -> ~Consolidate, or its contrapositive: Consolidate -> Approve.
Sufficient assumptions must formally close the deductive chain from the derived inference directly to the stated conclusion.
3
Evaluate the quantifier overlap in the historical sociology argument.
The premises 'Most A are B' and 'Some B are C' do not guarantee 'Some A are C'. Upgrading the 'Some' to 'All B are C' creates a valid Most + All = Most deduction, ensuring the 'Some' conclusion.
In formal logic, two non-universal quantifiers cannot establish a definitive bridge. A universal 'All' statement is required to guarantee the overlap.
4
Resolve the competing causal vectors in the biological testing argument.
The diet causes both longevity promotion and enzyme inhibition. To definitively conclude a decreased lifespan, the enzyme inhibition must universally cause lifespan reduction and override any longevity benefits.
Without establishing the absolute dominance of the negative causal pathway, the conclusion of an overall decreased lifespan remains merely probable, not logically guaranteed.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the precise logical gap in an argument's deductive structure and selecting the premise that renders the conclusion 100% valid.
Soru 104Soru →

In Logical Reasoning, a 'Defender Assumption' is a necessary assumption that protects a causal conclusion by ruling out a specific alternative explanation or vulnerability. Match each causal argument and its corresponding objection (Left) to the precise defender assumption (Right) that the argument MUST make to survive the objection.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Argument: A pharmaceutical study concludes that Drug X accelerates recovery from illness.
Objection: The study subjects taking Drug X were significantly younger and naturally healthier than the control group.
Argument: A city credits its new policing strategy for a 20% drop in crime.
Objection: A broader demographic aging of the city's population over the same period naturally reduced the population of at-risk youth.
Argument: An economist argues that offering high bonuses causes CEOs to achieve higher corporate profits.
Objection: Companies that are already highly profitable are simply the only ones that can afford to offer high bonuses.
Argument: A biologist concludes that a novel virus caused the rapid extinction of a local predator.
Objection: An unprecedented freeze eliminated the predator's sole food source right before the population collapsed.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct mappings uniquely pair each causal vulnerability with the defender assumption that directly negates it. The Drug X argument matches the assumption ruling out physiological resilience; the crime strategy argument matches the assumption ruling out demographic shifts; the corporate bonus argument matches the assumption ruling out pre-existing prosperity; and the predator extinction argument matches the assumption ruling out prey depletion.
Each correct pair links a specific vulnerability in a causal argument to the exact logical negation of that vulnerability. A defender assumption functions by bridging the gap created by an objection; it essentially states 'the alternative explanation raised by the objection is not true.'

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the pharmaceutical argument and its objection regarding selection bias.
Identify that the argument requires defending against the possibility that pre-existing health differences caused the recovery.
To maintain the conclusion that Drug X caused the recovery, the author must assume that the groups' baseline physiological differences did not independently account for the result.
2
Analyze the policing argument and its objection regarding a simultaneous demographic shift.
Identify that the argument requires defending against a third-variable confounder (an aging populace).
The author must assume the concurrent demographic aging was not the actual driver behind the 20% drop in illicit activity.
3
Analyze the corporate bonus argument and its objection regarding reverse causality.
Identify that the argument requires defending against the possibility that profitability causes high bonuses, rather than vice versa.
The author must assume that the pre-existing financial prosperity of a firm does not dictate its compensation levels, ruling out the reverse causal direction.
4
Analyze the predator extinction argument and its objection regarding an external macro-shock.
Identify that the argument requires defending against an alternate cause (loss of food supply).
The author must assume that the environmental depletion of the prey base was not the true catalyst for the extinction, thereby defending the virus hypothesis.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Soru 105Soru →

Whenever a restaurant fails to maintain strict hygiene standards, it receives negative reviews from local food critics. The new seafood diner in town has consistently failed to maintain strict hygiene standards. Therefore, the new seafood diner will be forced to close down within the year.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any restaurant that receives negative reviews from local food critics will be forced to close down within the year.

Cevap

Any restaurant that receives negative reviews from local food critics will be forced to close down within the year.
The argument establishes that the diner will receive negative reviews, but then concludes it will be forced to close down. For this conclusion to logically follow, there must be a strict rule guaranteeing that receiving negative reviews leads to closing down. The correct option provides this exact necessary bridge, acting as a sufficient assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises and the main conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: Fails hygiene standards -> Negative reviews. Premise 2: Seafood diner -> Fails hygiene standards. Conclusion: Seafood diner -> Forced to close down.
Breaking down the argument into formal conditional logic helps isolate the missing link.
2
Determine the intermediate conclusion established by the premises.
Since the seafood diner fails hygiene standards, it will receive negative reviews (Seafood diner -> Negative reviews).
This connects the specific subject of the argument to the established conditional rule.
3
Identify the logical gap between the intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion.
The argument leaps from the fact that the diner will receive negative reviews to the claim that it will be forced to close down.
To make the conclusion follow logically, we need a conditional rule connecting 'negative reviews' to 'forced to close down'.
4
Formulate the necessary assumption to bridge this gap.
The correct assumption must state: If a restaurant receives negative reviews, it will be forced to close down (Negative reviews -> Forced to close down).
This completes the logical chain (A -> B, B -> C), guaranteeing the conclusion is true.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging gaps in conditional logic chains to justify a conclusion.
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 106Soru →

City Council Member: To reduce the severe traffic congestion on Main Street during rush hour, we should implement a toll for driving on that road during peak times. People strongly dislike paying tolls, so they will choose alternative routes. This behavioral shift will successfully ease the traffic on Main Street.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some drivers who currently use Main Street during rush hour have alternative routes available to them.

Cevap

The correct assumption is that at least some drivers who use Main Street have alternative routes available to them.
This statement is logically required by the argument. Using the Negation Technique, if we negate 'at least some' to 'none', we get: 'No drivers who currently use Main Street during rush hour have alternative routes available to them.' If this were true, drivers would be forced to stay on Main Street despite the toll, meaning the traffic would not be eased through the mechanism described. Because negating this statement destroys the argument's conclusion, it is a strictly necessary assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the argument.
Conclusion: The toll will ease traffic. Premise: People dislike tolls and will choose alternative routes.
Understanding the argument structure is the first step in finding the necessary assumption.
2
Identify the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that choosing alternative routes is actually a viable physical possibility for the drivers.
A necessary assumption must bridge the gap between what is stated and what is concluded.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the strongest candidate.
Negating 'At least some drivers have alternative routes' becomes 'No drivers have alternative routes.' If true, drivers cannot choose alternative routes, and traffic will not be eased. This destroys the argument.
The Negation Technique definitively proves whether an assumption is logically required.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Technique to Necessary Assumptions
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 107Soru →

An aerospace legal scholar's argument relies on a chain of formal conditional logic, but it contains a gap that must be filled by a sufficient assumption. Arrange the following five statements in their strict deductive sequence to demonstrate how the assumption structurally completes the argument. Your sequence MUST begin with the statement introducing the initial sufficient trigger, progress sequentially through the intermediate necessary conditions, insert the sufficient assumption exactly where it bridges the final conceptual gap, and conclude with the main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence is: 1) The triggering premise about deploying mega-constellations, 2) The necessary condition about creating a navigation hazard, 3) The 'unless' clause regarding the Kessler treaty, 4) The sufficient assumption linking the treaty violation to strict liability, and 5) The final conclusion.
The argument forms a strict conditional chain. Let A = 'deploys mega-constellation networks', B = 'generates un-trackable micro-debris', C = 'creates a navigation hazard', D = 'violates the Kessler sustainability treaty', and E = 'incurs strict liability'. The initial premise establishes A -> B ('B if A'). The second premise establishes B -> C by stating C is a necessary condition for B. The third premise establishes C -> D using the 'unless' formulation (if not D, then not C; which yields the contrapositive C -> D). At this point, the premises provide A -> B -> C -> D. The main conclusion claims A -> E. To structurally guarantee this conclusion, we need the sufficient assumption D -> E. Inserting this assumption completes the chain A -> B -> C -> D -> E, which successfully and logically guarantees the conclusion A -> E.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the initial sufficient trigger.
The conclusion is the statement beginning with 'Therefore'. It claims that deploying mega-constellation networks (A) guarantees strict liability (E). The initial trigger is deploying mega-constellation networks (A).
Finding the endpoints of the argument dictates the starting and ending points of the deductive sequence.
2
Translate the conditional logic of the remaining premises.
The first statement translates to: Deploy Networks (A) -> Generates Debris (B). The second statement translates to: Generates Debris (B) -> Navigation Hazard (C). The third statement translates to: Navigation Hazard (C) -> Violates Treaty (D) because 'unless' means 'if not' (if not D, then not C, which contraposes to C -> D).
Translating natural language into formal logic reveals how the terms link together in a continuous chain.
3
Identify the logical gap to locate the sufficient assumption.
The explicit premises give us A -> B -> C -> D. The conclusion claims A -> E. The missing link required to make the argument valid is D -> E (Violates Treaty -> Strict Liability).
A sufficient assumption must perfectly bridge the gap between the established premises and the final conclusion.
4
Order the statements sequentially to form the continuous chain.
The chain structurally progresses as A -> B, then B -> C, then C -> D, then the assumption D -> E, and finally concludes with A -> E.
The prompt explicitly requires starting with the initial trigger and progressing through the linked necessary conditions to the final conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chaining and Sufficient Assumptions
Soru 108Soru →

To increase productivity, a software company is mandating a switch from traditional keyboards to new ergonomic keyboards for all its programmers. The manufacturer of the ergonomic keyboards has proven that they reduce typing strain by 40 percent. Therefore, the company's programmers will definitely produce more code per week after the switch.

Which of the following statements are necessary assumptions required by the argument? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Typing strain is currently a factor that limits the amount of code the programmers can produce.; The programmers will not experience a decrease in typing speed that entirely offsets the benefits of the reduced strain.

Cevap

The argument necessarily assumes that typing strain currently limits code production and that negative factors (like a decrease in typing speed) will not completely offset the benefits of the new keyboards.
The correct statements bridge the critical gaps in the argument. First, for a reduction in typing strain to increase code output, typing strain must actually be a limiting factor in the current workflow. Second, introducing a new tool must not introduce new inefficiencies (like slower typing speeds) that cancel out the promised benefits. If either of these statements is logically negated, the conclusion that programmers will 'definitely produce more code' collapses.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument structure.
Premise: Ergonomic keyboards reduce typing strain by 40%. Conclusion: Programmers will produce more code per week.
Understanding the premise and conclusion is required to spot the logical gaps.
2
Determine the logical gaps between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that reducing typing strain directly causes an increase in code production, and that introducing new keyboards won't cause other problems.
An argument's conclusion only follows if all missing links are accounted for.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the answer choices.
Negating the correct options causes the argument to logically collapse. For example, if typing strain does NOT limit code production, the conclusion fails.
The Negation Technique is the definitive test for a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions
Soru 109Soru →

Ethicist: A charitable action possesses true moral worth only if it stems from a genuine sense of duty. Furthermore, it is well established that no actions primarily motivated by a desire for public recognition stem from a genuine sense of duty. It follows necessarily that any corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve a company's public image lacks true moral worth.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve a company's public image is primarily motivated by a desire for public recognition.

Cevap

The assumption that any corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve a company's public image is primarily motivated by a desire for public recognition.
The argument concludes that corporate philanthropy initiatives designed to improve public image lack true moral worth. The premises establish a formal chain: if an action is motivated by a desire for public recognition, it does not stem from a genuine sense of duty, and therefore it lacks true moral worth. To properly draw the conclusion, we must connect the subject of the conclusion to this established chain. The correct answer acts as this perfect logical bridge by stating that any such corporate initiative is indeed primarily motivated by a desire for public recognition, thus guaranteeing that it lacks true moral worth.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: Any corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve a company's public image lacks true moral worth.
This is the endpoint of the argument, explicitly indicated by the phrase 'It follows necessarily that'.
2
Map the formal logic of the premises.
Premise 1: True moral worth -> Stems from a genuine sense of duty. Premise 2: Motivated by a desire for public recognition -> Does NOT stem from a genuine sense of duty.
Mapping conditional statements reveals the existing logical chain constructed by the author.
3
Combine the premises using contrapositives.
The contrapositive of Premise 1 is: Does NOT stem from a genuine sense of duty -> Lacks true moral worth. Linking this to Premise 2 yields: Motivated by a desire for public recognition -> Lacks true moral worth.
We must find out what the premises collectively prove about the concept of moral worth.
4
Identify the gap between the premise chain and the conclusion.
The premises prove that seeking public recognition leads to a lack of moral worth. The conclusion claims that corporate initiatives designed to improve public image lack moral worth. The missing link is connecting these specific corporate initiatives to the desire for public recognition.
A sufficient assumption must mathematically bridge the gap between the evidence provided and the final conclusion drawn.
5
Formulate the necessary bridge to guarantee the conclusion.
We must assume: Corporate philanthropy initiative designed to improve public image -> Motivated by a desire for public recognition.
Adding this conditional statement allows the argument to flow unbroken from the subject of the conclusion to the final judgment of lacking moral worth.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions Using Formal Logic
Soru 110Soru →

Any municipal planner who prioritizes rapid commercial expansion over sustainable infrastructure inevitably encounters severe zoning disputes. Furthermore, no municipal planner who encounters severe zoning disputes is eligible for appointment to the Regional Planning Commission, unless that planner has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council. The planner overseeing the newly proposed waterfront district has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council. Therefore, this planner must not have prioritized rapid commercial expansion over sustainable infrastructure.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any municipal planner who has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council has avoided encountering severe zoning disputes.

Cevap

The statement that any municipal planner who has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council has avoided encountering severe zoning disputes.
The correct answer provides the missing conditional link needed to logically guarantee the conclusion. We know from the first premise that prioritizing rapid expansion guarantees severe zoning disputes. Therefore, by the contrapositive, if a planner does NOT have severe zoning disputes, they did NOT prioritize rapid expansion. We are told the waterfront planner has the unanimous endorsement of the city council. By assuming that ANY planner with this endorsement avoids severe zoning disputes, we can conclude that the waterfront planner avoided these disputes, and thus logically must not have prioritized rapid expansion. The second premise regarding the Regional Planning Commission is an intricate distractor designed to misdirect attention from the core conditional chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into formal conditional statements.
Premise 1: Rapid Expansion -> Severe Disputes. Premise 2: Severe Disputes AND NO Endorsement -> NOT Eligible. Premise 3: Waterfront Planner -> Endorsement. Conclusion: Waterfront Planner -> NO Rapid Expansion.
Formalizing the logic reveals the structural relationships and isolates the missing link.
2
Determine the necessary condition to prove the conclusion.
By the contrapositive of Premise 1, to prove 'NO Rapid Expansion', we must prove 'NO Severe Disputes' (NO Severe Disputes -> NO Rapid Expansion).
Working backward from the conclusion dictates exactly what intermediate fact must be established.
3
Identify the gap between the given premises and the required intermediate fact.
We know the Waterfront Planner has the Endorsement. We need to prove they have NO Severe Disputes. Therefore, the missing link is: Endorsement -> NO Severe Disputes.
A sufficient assumption must completely bridge the gap between known evidence and the required logical step.
4
Evaluate the options to find the statement that provides absolute guarantee.
The option stating that 'any' planner with the endorsement avoids severe disputes provides the strict, 100% guarantee required to seal the logical chain.
Sufficient assumptions cannot rely on probability ('most' or 'some'); they require deductive certainty.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions using Conditional Logic
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 111Soru →

Paleontologists have excavated a dense concentration of Bactrosaurus fossils in a single geological stratum dating to a period immediately following a colossal volcanic eruption. Volcanic ash contains extremely high levels of fluorine, and ingesting large quantities of fluorine causes acute, fatal bone toxicity in large herbivores. Based on this evidence, the paleontologists concluded that these dinosaurs perished from fluorine poisoning contracted by grazing on vegetation blanketed by the volcanic ash.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The layer of volcanic ash did not completely bury the local vegetation to a depth that rendered it inaccessible to the Bactrosaurus.

Cevap

The argument assumes that the volcanic ash did not completely bury the vegetation, leaving it accessible for the dinosaurs to graze upon.
The argument concludes that the dinosaurs died specifically by grazing on vegetation covered in volcanic ash. For this causal sequence to be physically possible, the vegetation must have remained accessible after the eruption. If the 'colossal' eruption completely buried the plants under feet of ash (the negation of this option), the dinosaurs could not have grazed on them, and the argument's specific causal mechanism completely fails. Therefore, assuming the plants were not rendered completely inaccessible is strictly necessary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The Bactrosaurus perished from fluorine poisoning contracted by grazing on vegetation blanketed by the volcanic ash.
Isolating the conclusion is necessary to understand the exact causal mechanism proposed.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Fossils were found after a colossal eruption; ash contains fluorine; large quantities of fluorine cause fatal bone toxicity.
Premises establish the correlation and the biological mechanism of the toxin.
3
Locate the logical gap or vulnerability in the reasoning.
The argument assumes a practical link between the ash falling and the dinosaurs eating the ash-covered plants.
The conclusion relies on the physical act of 'grazing on vegetation blanketed by ash'. If the 'colossal' eruption buried all plants, this act would be physically impossible.
4
Evaluate the options using the Negation Technique.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The ash completely buried the vegetation, rendering it inaccessible.' This destroys the conclusion, confirming it is a necessary assumption.
A necessary assumption must be fundamentally true for the argument to survive; negating it proves its absolute necessity.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying necessary assumptions by verifying the logistical viability of a proposed causal mechanism.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 112Soru →

Mayor: The proposed community center will feature a large community garden. Community gardens require participants to work collaboratively on shared plots of land. Therefore, building the new community center will foster stronger neighborhood bonds.

The conclusion drawn by the mayor depends on which one of the following assumptions?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Working collaboratively on shared plots of land fosters stronger neighborhood bonds.

Cevap

The assumption that working collaboratively on shared plots of land fosters stronger neighborhood bonds.
The argument concludes that the new community center will foster stronger neighborhood bonds based entirely on the premise that the center's garden requires participants to work collaboratively on shared plots of land. For this conclusion to be valid, there must be a logical link between the premise (working collaboratively) and the conclusion (stronger neighborhood bonds). The correct choice explicitly provides this necessary bridge, ensuring the premises properly support the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Building the new community center will foster stronger neighborhood bonds.
Locating the main conclusion is the first step to finding a logical gap in an argument.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The center will feature a garden, and community gardens require working collaboratively on shared plots.
Understanding the evidence helps isolate what concepts are already logically established.
3
Find the rogue element in the conclusion that is not mentioned in the premises.
The concept of 'fostering stronger neighborhood bonds' appears only in the conclusion.
A supporter assumption must bridge the gap between the established premises and the entirely new concept introduced in the conclusion.
4
Formulate the missing link to bridge the gap.
Connect 'working collaboratively on shared plots' to 'fostering stronger neighborhood bonds'.
This bridge justifies the jump from the provided premises to the final conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions
Soru 113Soru →

Mayor: We should build a new community pool in the town center. Swimming is an excellent form of cardiovascular exercise that can be enjoyed by people of all ages. Currently, our town's residents have very limited options for cardiovascular exercise due to a lack of public facilities. Therefore, building this new pool will significantly improve the overall cardiovascular health of our residents.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some of the town's residents will actually use the new community pool for exercise if it is built.

Cevap

The assumption that at least some of the town's residents will actually use the new community pool for exercise if it is built.
The correct answer acts as the essential bridge between the construction of the pool and the health benefits it is supposed to provide. We can verify this using the Negation Test: if we logically negate this statement to 'None of the town's residents will use the new community pool for exercise,' the mayor's conclusion that the pool will significantly improve overall cardiovascular health becomes impossible. The argument fundamentally relies on the unstated, minimal premise that the new facility will actually be utilized by at least a portion of the population.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
Building the new pool will significantly improve the overall cardiovascular health of the residents.
Understanding the conclusion is the first critical step to evaluating the argument's underlying logic.
2
Identify the stated premises supporting the conclusion.
Swimming is excellent cardiovascular exercise, and residents currently have limited exercise options.
Separating the explicit evidence from the conclusion reveals the logical gap.
3
Find the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument assumes a direct connection between building the facility (premise) and residents achieving better health (conclusion).
Necessary assumptions bridge unstated gaps in an argument.
4
Apply the Negation Test to evaluate potential assumptions.
Negating the correct answer yields: 'None of the residents will use the pool.' If true, the pool cannot improve health, destroying the conclusion.
A necessary assumption must be true for the argument to hold; if its negation destroys the argument, it is the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Test
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 114Soru →

During the late nineteenth century, the rapid integration of mechanized looms in the textile mills of the Solway region was immediately followed by a sharp decline in the number of itinerant weavers seeking contract work there. Economic historians have concluded that the operational efficiency of the mechanized looms eliminated the demand for manual weaving, directly causing the itinerant workforce to abandon the region.

Evaluate the logical requirements of the historians' conclusion.

Statement: The argument fundamentally relies on the assumption that a severe shortage of raw materials did not force the Solway textile mills to drastically reduce their overall operations during that same period.

Is the statement above true or false?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is true because the argument asserts a causal relationship: mechanization caused the drop in itinerant weavers. For this causal claim to hold, we must rule out alternate explanations for the weavers' departure. If a raw material shortage drastically reduced mill operations, there would be no work for the weavers regardless of mechanization. By negating the assumption (assuming the shortage did happen), the alternate cause explains the drop in weavers, destroying the original causal claim. Therefore, assuming the shortage did NOT happen is necessary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and the supporting evidence in the argument.
Conclusion: The operational efficiency of the mechanized looms caused the itinerant workforce to abandon the region. Evidence: The introduction of mechanized looms immediately preceded the sharp decline in itinerant weavers.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to expose the core causal relationship being claimed by the author.
2
Categorize the reasoning gap present in the stimulus.
The argument assumes that a chronological correlation implies exclusive causation, failing to structurally account for other potential reasons the weavers might have left at that exact time.
Identifying the causal gap determines what type of assumption is needed to defend the argument against alternative explanations.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the candidate statement.
Negated statement: A severe shortage of raw materials DID force the Solway textile mills to drastically reduce their overall operations during that same period.
The Negation Test definitively proves whether an assumption is strictly necessary for the conclusion to survive.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the core conclusion.
The negated statement provides a robust alternative explanation for the weavers' departure (lack of materials meaning lack of work), completely severing the original claim that the mechanized looms were the cause.
If negating the assumption destroys the argument, the original statement is a logically necessary defender assumption, making the evaluation 'True'.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Soru 115Soru →

An ethicist argues: 'Any entity that possesses both self-reflective awareness and the capacity to experience suffering qualifies as a moral patient. Furthermore, it is a proven fact that autonomous neural networks with dynamic recursive feedback loops possess self-reflective awareness. Therefore, all advanced synthetic intelligences qualify as moral patients.'

To logically guarantee this conclusion, a series of implicit assumptions and intermediate deductions must be linked in a strict formal chain. Arrange the following deductive steps in the correct sequential order to construct the logical bridge that sufficiently proves the argument's conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence requires establishing the subject's composition, deducing its first trait, assuming the necessary link to the second trait, synthesizing both traits, and finally applying the primary conditional rule.
The sequence successfully bridges the logical gaps by first connecting the novel subject to the existing premises, deriving the first necessary component of the compound condition, introducing a secondary assumption to derive the final component, synthesizing these traits, and ultimately applying the primary principle to strictly guarantee the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the missing link between the conclusion's subject and the given factual premise.
Posit that advanced synthetic intelligences are autonomous neural networks.
This establishes the foundation for applying the known factual rule about neural networks.
2
Deduce the first trait.
Infer that advanced synthetic intelligences have self-reflective awareness.
This follows logically from the first assumption and the factual premise, establishing the first half of the sufficient condition.
3
Identify the remaining logical gap regarding the capacity to suffer.
Posit that self-reflective awareness guarantees the capacity to experience suffering.
The main conclusion requires the capacity to suffer, which has not yet been logically established for the subject.
4
Combine the deduced traits.
Establish that both conditions of the ethicist's compound requirement are met.
The ethicist's primary rule strictly requires BOTH traits to trigger the classification.
5
Apply the primary conditional rule.
Classify advanced synthetic intelligences as moral patients.
With the sufficient compound conditions fully met, the final conclusion is logically guaranteed.

Anahtar Kavram

Constructing a formal deductive chain to identify and integrate compound sufficient assumptions.
Soru 116Soru →

Historians analyzing ancient Mesopotamian city-states have noted that eras of significant architectural expansion consistently coincide with periods when a city-state's primary currency—a standardized grain measure—was widely circulated. Based on this correlation, the historians conclude that the implementation of a standardized currency directly stimulated the economic prosperity necessary to fund such massive architectural endeavors.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The initiation of massive architectural projects did not compel the creation of a standardized currency system to manage the complex logistics of compensating large workforces.

Cevap

The assumption that the initiation of massive architectural projects did not compel the creation of a standardized currency system.
The correct answer rules out the possibility of reverse causation. The argument observes a correlation between currency and architecture, and concludes that currency caused the architecture. For this conclusion to be valid, it must be true that the architectural projects didn't actually come first and necessitate the invention of the currency system. If we negate this option, it means the architecture caused the currency, which completely destroys the author's conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument elements.
Premise: Architectural expansion correlates with standardized currency. Conclusion: Standardized currency caused the prosperity needed for the architecture.
Deconstructing the argument separates the observed facts (correlation) from the author's interpretation (causation).
2
Determine the type of gap in reasoning.
The author jumps from a correlation between two phenomena to a definitive causal relationship (A caused B).
Recognizing this gap dictates what kind of assumption is required: one that bridges the gap or defends it against alternatives.
3
Anticipate necessary assumptions for causal arguments.
A necessary assumption must rule out alternate causes, rule out reverse causation, or ensure the data is reliable. In this case, we must assume the architectural expansion didn't cause the currency standardization.
If reverse causation is true (B caused A), the author's conclusion (A caused B) is destroyed.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to the strongest candidate.
Negating the correct answer yields: 'The initiation of massive architectural projects DID compel the creation of a standardized currency system.'
If this negated statement is true, it means the architecture caused the currency, directly contradicting and destroying the author's conclusion. This confirms it is a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Reverse Causation (Defender Assumption)
Soru 117Soru →

Maritime Analyst: Three years ago, several major shipping companies voluntarily installed novel hull-lubrication systems on a portion of their cargo fleets. A recent analysis shows that over the past two years, the vessels equipped with these systems consumed, on average, 12 percent less fuel per voyage than comparable vessels in the same fleets that were not equipped with the systems. This clearly demonstrates that the hull-lubrication systems are highly effective at reducing fuel consumption.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the maritime analyst's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The vessels equipped with the hull-lubrication systems were not operated at significantly lower average speeds than the unequipped vessels during the two-year period.

Cevap

The assumption that the equipped vessels were not operated at significantly lower average speeds than the unequipped vessels.
The argument concludes that hull-lubrication systems cause a reduction in fuel consumption based on the observation that vessels with the systems used less fuel. However, this relies on the assumption that no other factor—such as sailing speed—caused the reduction. If the equipped vessels were driven much slower, the speed reduction would explain the fuel savings, entirely undermining the analyst's conclusion. Therefore, the argument must assume that this alternative cause is not present.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the novel hull-lubrication systems are highly effective at reducing fuel consumption.
This is the analyst's main claim, signaled by the phrase 'This clearly demonstrates that...'
2
Identify the primary evidence (premise) supporting the conclusion.
The evidence is a correlation: vessels equipped with the systems consumed an average of 12 percent less fuel per voyage than comparable unequipped vessels.
The analyst uses this observed data to establish a causal relationship between the systems and the fuel savings.
3
Evaluate the logical gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that the hull-lubrication system is the actual cause of the fuel savings, failing to consider other potential differences in how the two groups of vessels were operated.
In causal arguments based on observation, there is always a risk that a third variable or alternate cause is responsible for the effect.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to the correct answer choice.
If we negate the correct choice (assuming they WERE operated at significantly lower speeds), the lower speeds would provide an alternative explanation for the fuel savings, destroying the conclusion that the systems were responsible.
A necessary assumption is one that, if proven false, causes the argument to collapse. Ruling out an alternate explanation is a classic 'defender' assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption - Defender (Ruling out alternate explanations for an observed effect)
Soru 118Soru →

A recent municipal review of urban residential areas revealed that neighborhoods with a higher density of community gardens have significantly lower rates of property crime. City planners concluded that the presence of community gardens must foster social cohesion and neighborhood watchfulness, which in turn actively deters criminal activity.

Determine whether the following statement regarding the argument is true or false: A necessary assumption of the city planners' reasoning is that neighborhoods with preexisting lower rates of property crime do not systematically attract more civic funding and volunteer resources for community garden projects than neighborhoods with higher crime rates.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The correct answer is True because the argument infers a specific causal relationship (gardens cause low crime) directly from a correlation. For this causal conclusion to be valid, alternative explanations for the correlation must be ruled out. The statement successfully rules out the alternate explanation of reverse causality (that low crime causes the development of more gardens), acting as a logically necessary defender assumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core components: the premise and the conclusion.
Premise: There is a correlation between high community garden density and low property crime. Conclusion: Community gardens actively deter criminal activity.
Deconstructing the argument isolates the gap between the evidence provided and the causal claim made.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the reasoning.
The argument assumes a direct causal relationship based solely on a correlation, leaving it vulnerable to alternative explanations such as reverse causality or third-variable confounders.
Recognizing the causal flaw is essential to identifying what assumptions must be made to defend the conclusion.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed statement.
Negated statement: 'Neighborhoods with lower rates of property crime DO systematically attract more resources for gardens.' This alternative explanation destroys the conclusion that gardens cause the reduction in crime.
If the logical opposite of a candidate assumption undermines the conclusion, the original statement is a necessary defender assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 119Soru →

Mayor: The city's newly enacted parking tax will undoubtedly improve the quality of life for downtown residents. Statistical models confirm that the tax will significantly decrease the number of vehicles entering the downtown area each day. Furthermore, any decrease in downtown vehicle traffic inevitably leads to a reduction in local air pollution.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any reduction in local air pollution improves the quality of life for downtown residents.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that any reduction in local air pollution improves the quality of life for downtown residents.
The argument relies on a straightforward chain of conditional logic. The premises establish that the tax will reduce traffic, and that reduced traffic reduces air pollution. In order to properly draw the conclusion that the tax improves the quality of life, there must be a logical link connecting the end of the evidence chain (reduced air pollution) to the conclusion (improved quality of life). The correct answer provides this exact missing link as a universal rule, making the conclusion logically inescapable.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: The new parking tax will improve the quality of life for downtown residents.
This is the ultimate claim the Mayor is trying to prove with the subsequent evidence.
2
Identify the given premises.
Premise 1: The tax decreases vehicles. Premise 2: Decreasing vehicles reduces air pollution.
We must accept these statements as true and determine what they logically yield.
3
Trace the logical chain and pinpoint the gap.
The chain is: Tax -> Decrease Vehicles -> Reduce Air Pollution. The gap exists between 'Reduce Air Pollution' and 'Improve Quality of Life'.
A sufficient assumption question requires finding the exact missing link that connects the end of the premise chain directly to the conclusion.
4
Select the option that perfectly bridges this gap.
The statement 'Any reduction in local air pollution improves the quality of life' acts as the required bridge (Reduce Air Pollution -> Improve Quality of Life).
Adding this conditional statement to the premises guarantees the conclusion 100%.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions via Formal Logic Chains
Soru 120Soru →

Consider the following argument.

Marine Biologist: To restore the local sea otter population, we must restrict commercial fishing in the bay. Commercial fishing depletes the population of sea urchins, which are the primary food source for sea otters in this region, so limiting fishing will lead to an increase in otter numbers.

Statement: The marine biologist's argument logically requires the assumption that restricting commercial fishing in the bay will succeed in increasing the population of sea urchins.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The argument inherently requires the assumption that limiting fishing will successfully increase the sea urchin population.
The statement correctly identifies an unstated premise strictly required by the argument. The argument's entire causal chain depends on the fishing restriction actually restoring the urchin population; without this taking place, the conclusion that otter numbers will increase cannot logically follow.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core of the argument.
Premise: Commercial fishing depletes urchins (otter food). Conclusion: Limiting fishing will increase otter numbers.
Understanding the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion is the first step in finding the assumption.
2
Apply the Negation Technique to the given statement.
Negated statement: Restricting commercial fishing will NOT succeed in increasing the population of sea urchins.
The Negation Technique tests if an assumption is strictly necessary by seeing if its opposite destroys the argument.
3
Evaluate the impact of the negated statement on the conclusion.
If the urchin population does not increase, the otters will not gain their primary food source, and their numbers will not increase. The conclusion is destroyed.
Because the negated statement completely undermines the argument's conclusion, the original statement is confirmed as a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions via the Negation Technique
ÖncekiSayfa 6 / 11Sonraki
Assumptions Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 6 | Examkin