Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)

26 soru

Soru 21Soru →

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 22Soru →

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 23Soru →

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 24Soru →

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 25Soru →

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 26Soru →

An urban planner argues: 'Last year, our city installed a new smart traffic light network at ten major intersections. Over the past twelve months, traffic accidents at these specific intersections decreased by 30%. Therefore, the new smart traffic lights directly caused this significant reduction in accidents.'

Match each potential alternate explanation (objection) on the left with the specific defender assumption on the right that the urban planner must rely on to neutralize that threat to the causal claim.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

A new highway bypass recently opened, diverting a substantial amount of vehicle traffic away from the targeted intersections.
The city simultaneously doubled police patrols at the targeted intersections to monitor the implementation of the new system.
The targeted intersections were chosen solely because they experienced an anomalous, statistically rare spike in accidents the prior year.
The year prior to the installation featured record-breaking ice storms, while the past twelve months had unusually clear weather.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Match the highway bypass to the assumption about car volume; the police patrols to the assumption about law enforcement; the anomalous spike to the assumption about historical baselines; and the weather changes to the assumption about mild climate.
In causal reasoning, a defender assumption protects the argument by explicitly ruling out an alternative explanation for the evidence. By matching each specific threat (alternate cause) with the assumption that negates it, we logically insulate the author's claim that the smart lights were the true cause.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the causal argument in the stem.
The argument concludes that A (smart lights) caused B (reduced accidents) based on the premise that B followed A.
Identifying the cause and effect is required to understand what alternate explanations threaten the conclusion.
2
Understand the function of a defender assumption.
A defender assumption eliminates a specific alternate cause or confounding variable that could explain the observed effect.
This establishes the rule for matching: the correct assumption must directly negate the specific alternate explanation proposed in the left column.
3
Evaluate each alternate explanation and pair it with its logical negation.
Highway bypass (volume drop) pairs with the assumption of no volume drop. Police pairs with no law enforcement effect. Statistical anomaly pairs with no reversion to baseline. Weather pairs with no climate effect.
This guarantees that if the assumption is true, the specific threat to the author's causal claim is successfully eliminated.

Anahtar Kavram

Defender Assumptions (Ruling out alternative causes)
ÖncekiSayfa 2 / 2
Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender) Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 2 | Examkin