Inference and Deduction

215 soru

Soru 81Soru →

A city planner is outlining the causal dependencies of a proposed urban renewal project. Order the following propositions to establish a continuous, unbroken logical chain proving that passing the new zoning ordinance guarantees the expansion of the rail network.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical progression starts with the contrapositive of the zoning approval failure (Ordinance → Construction), follows directly to the density increase (Construction → Density), uses the contrapositive of the retail store failure (Density → Retail), and concludes directly with the transit expansion (Retail → Transit).
The correct sequence successfully maps the conditional relationships, translating contrapositives where necessary, to form a continuous transitive chain. It moves from Ordinance → Construction (via contrapositive), then Construction → Density (direct translation), then Density → Retail (via contrapositive), and finally Retail → Transit Expansion (direct translation).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the required starting trigger and the final necessary outcome from the stem.
The chain must start with 'passing the new zoning ordinance' and end with 'the expansion of the rail network'.
Establishing the endpoints determines the proper direction of the transitive deductive chain.
2
Diagram the statement containing the starting trigger, applying the contrapositive rule if necessary.
The statement about a failure to approve construction indicates (No Construction → No Ordinance). The contrapositive is (Ordinance → Construction).
This correctly provides the first positive link from the starting trigger.
3
Find the statement where the necessary condition of the first link becomes the sufficient condition.
The statement about approving construction directly translates to (Construction → Density Increase).
This extends the chain to its second step via the transitive property.
4
Diagram the remaining statements to complete the path to the final outcome.
The statement regarding the retail conglomerate deciding against opening translates to (No Retail → No Density), which becomes (Density → Retail) via contrapositive. Finally, the statement about the opening of a flagship store translates directly to (Retail → Transit Expansion).
This completes the unbroken logical chain: Ordinance → Construction → Density Increase → Retail Store → Transit Expansion.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements and Contrapositives
Soru 82Soru →

In the city's botanical garden, all luminescent plants require high humidity. Furthermore, some luminescent plants in the botanical garden bloom at night.

Which one of the following must be true based on the information above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Some plants in the botanical garden that bloom at night require high humidity.

Cevap

Some plants in the botanical garden that bloom at night require high humidity.
The correct answer must be true because if 'some' (at least one) luminescent plants bloom at night, and 'all' luminescent plants require high humidity, then those specific night-blooming luminescent plants must also require high humidity. Therefore, there is at least one plant (some) that both blooms at night and requires high humidity.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first premise.
All luminescent plants require high humidity (Luminescent -> High Humidity).
This establishes a universal requirement for a specific group of plants.
2
Analyze the second premise.
Some luminescent plants bloom at night (Luminescent-some-Night Blooming).
This establishes that at least one plant belongs to both the 'luminescent' category and the 'night blooming' category.
3
Combine the premises to find the overlap.
Since the plants that are both luminescent and night-blooming are luminescent, they must also require high humidity.
Applying the universal rule from step 1 to the specific subset identified in step 2 proves that at least some night-blooming plants require high humidity.

Anahtar Kavram

Quantifier Logic Overlaps (All + Some)
Soru 83Soru →

Every medication approved for pediatric use by the central health board has undergone long-term safety trials. Furthermore, no experimental therapy currently in Phase 3 testing has been subsidized by the national government. Interestingly, some medications approved for pediatric use by the central health board are experimental therapies currently in Phase 3 testing.

If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some medications that have undergone long-term safety trials have not been subsidized by the national government.

Cevap

At least some medications that have undergone long-term safety trials have not been subsidized by the national government.
The correct answer properly chains the established relationships. We know there is an overlap between pediatric medications and Phase 3 experimental therapies. Because all pediatric medications undergo long-term safety trials, this overlapping group must also have undergone long-term safety trials. Furthermore, because no Phase 3 therapies are subsidized, this overlapping group cannot be subsidized. Therefore, there exists at least some group of medications (the overlapping group) that have undergone long-term safety trials but are not subsidized.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the formal logic and conditional statements in the stimulus.
Pediatric Approval (PA) → Long-Term Trials (LTT). Phase 3 (P3) → NOT Subsidized (~SUB). PA 'some' P3.
Mapping the premises clearly separates the established relationships from potential assumptions.
2
Combine the 'some' statement with the absolute conditional statements.
Since PA 'some' P3, and PA → LTT, we can deduce that LTT 'some' P3 (some medications with long-term trials are in Phase 3).
If an entity has characteristic A and characteristic B, and all A's are C's, then that entity must also be a C that has characteristic B.
3
Apply the remaining absolute conditional to the new deduction.
Since LTT 'some' P3, and all P3 → ~SUB, it must logically follow that LTT 'some' ~SUB.
Any entity that is both LTT and P3 is subject to the rule governing P3. Since nothing in P3 is subsidized, those specific LTT entities are not subsidized.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining intersecting quantifiers with conditional rules to deduce a 'some' statement.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 84Soru →

At the regional hospital, any nurse who is assigned to the intensive care unit (ICU) must have completed the specialized critical care certification. Furthermore, no nurse who has completed the specialized critical care certification is permitted to work shifts longer than 12 hours. It is known that some nurses working on the night shift are assigned to the intensive care unit.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Some nurses working on the night shift are not permitted to work shifts longer than 12 hours.

Cevap

Some nurses working on the night shift are not permitted to work shifts longer than 12 hours.
The correct answer properly combines the provided premises. Since any nurse in the ICU must be certified, and no certified nurse can work more than 12 hours, it logically follows that no ICU nurse can work more than 12 hours. Because we are told that some night shift nurses are in the ICU, these particular nurses are absolutely subject to the ICU rules. Therefore, it must be true that some night shift nurses are not permitted to work shifts longer than 12 hours.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the rules into formal logic.
1. ICU -> Certification. 2. Certification -> NOT >12 hours. 3. Night Shift SOME ICU.
Mapping the statements makes the logical chain and the quantities explicit.
2
Connect the conditional statements.
Since ICU requires Certification, and Certification prevents shifts longer than 12 hours, we can deduce: ICU -> NOT >12 hours.
The transitive property of conditional logic allows us to connect the sufficient condition of the first premise to the necessary condition of the second.
3
Combine the chained conditional with the existential quantifier.
We know at least some night shift nurses are in the ICU. Since ALL ICU nurses are prohibited from working >12 hours, those specific night shift nurses must also be prohibited from working >12 hours.
Applying a universal rule (all ICU nurses) to a specific subgroup (some night shift nurses) yields a valid deduction about that subgroup.

Anahtar Kavram

Formal Logic Chaining and Existential Quantifiers
Soru 85Soru →

A municipal oversight committee has established the following regulatory framework for new infrastructure contracts:

- A contract mandates union labor only if it bypasses the secondary financial audit.
- Failure to secure comprehensive risk insurance precludes a contract from receiving fast-track funding approval.
- Incorporating an extended public comment period is sufficient to delay the initial project timeline.
- Securing comprehensive risk insurance requires that the contract mandate union labor.
- No contract bypasses the secondary financial audit unless it incorporates an extended public comment period.

Assume a new infrastructure contract receives fast-track funding approval. Based exclusively on the framework above, arrange the following outcomes in the exact logical sequence they must follow to form an unbroken deductive chain of necessary conditions, from the immediate requirement to the final outcome.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence of necessary conditions is: secures comprehensive risk insurance, mandates union labor, bypasses the secondary financial audit, incorporates an extended public comment period, and finally, the initial project timeline is delayed.
The sequence is built by accurately translating complex conditional indicators into a transitive logical chain. The trigger is 'fast-track funding approval' (F). The contrapositive of the second rule yields F -> Insurance (I). The fourth rule yields I -> Union Labor (UL). The first rule yields UL -> Bypass Audit (BA). The fifth rule yields BA -> Extended Public Comment (EPC). The third rule yields EPC -> Delayed Timeline (DT). Stringing these together gives the unbroken chain: F -> I -> UL -> BA -> EPC -> DT.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the trigger condition and find its immediate necessary outcome using the second rule.
Fast-track funding approval -> Secures comprehensive risk insurance.
The rule 'Failure to secure comprehensive risk insurance precludes a contract from receiving fast-track funding approval' translates to: (~Insurance -> ~Fast-track). Taking the contrapositive yields the valid deduction: (Fast-track -> Insurance).
2
Find the necessary condition for securing comprehensive risk insurance using the fourth rule.
Secures comprehensive risk insurance -> Mandates union labor.
The rule states that securing insurance 'requires' union labor. The term 'requires' always introduces a necessary condition.
3
Determine the necessary condition for mandating union labor using the first rule.
Mandates union labor -> Bypasses secondary financial audit.
The rule uses the phrase 'only if', which introduces a necessary condition. Therefore, 'mandates union labor only if it bypasses the audit' translates to: (Union labor -> Bypasses audit).
4
Identify the necessary condition for bypassing the secondary financial audit using the fifth rule.
Bypasses secondary financial audit -> Incorporates extended public comment period.
The rule structure 'No A unless B' translates logically to 'If A, then B'. Thus, bypassing the audit guarantees the incorporation of the extended public comment period: (Bypasses audit -> Extended public comment).
5
Find the final outcome resulting from the extended public comment period using the third rule.
Incorporates extended public comment period -> Initial project timeline is delayed.
The rule states that the comment period is 'sufficient' to delay the timeline, forming the final link in the chain: (Extended public comment -> Timeline delayed).

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements

Alternatif Yöntem

Instead of diagramming all the rules in isolation first, you can use the 'chain-building' method: start explicitly with the trigger ('fast-track funding approval'), and scan the text specifically for that exact term or its logical negation to find the first link. Repeat this process for each new necessary condition you discover.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 86Soru →

Every employee of the Zenith Corporation who receives the executive bonus has completed the advanced leadership training. Furthermore, no employee who has completed the advanced leadership training is eligible for the standard overtime rate. Some employees in the marketing department receive the executive bonus, and every employee in the marketing department was hired within the last five years.

Which of the following must be true based on the information provided?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: At least some employees who were hired within the last five years are not eligible for the standard overtime rate.

Cevap

At least some employees who were hired within the last five years are not eligible for the standard overtime rate.
The stimulus provides a chain of facts. First, we know that some marketing department employees receive the executive bonus. Second, anyone receiving the bonus has completed advanced leadership training, meaning these specific marketing employees have completed the training. Third, no one who has completed the training is eligible for the standard overtime rate, so these specific marketing employees are not eligible for standard overtime. Finally, because every marketing employee was hired within the last five years, these specific marketing employees who are ineligible for overtime were hired within the last five years. Thus, it is mathematically provable that at least some employees hired within the last five years are not eligible for standard overtime.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the primary conditional chain regarding the executive bonus.
Executive Bonus (EB) → Advanced Leadership Training (ALT) → NOT eligible for Standard Overtime Rate (~SOR).
This establishes the absolute rules that apply to anyone receiving the executive bonus.
2
Analyze the quantifier statements regarding the marketing department.
Marketing Department (MD) has 'some' employees with EB. Also, MD → Hired within last 5 years (H5).
We must map how a specific subset of employees fits into the absolute rules.
3
Combine the 'some' statement with the conditional chain.
Since 'some' MD employees have EB, and all EB employees are ~SOR, it follows that 'some' MD employees are ~SOR.
What is true of all members of a group (EB) must be true of any specific subset (the MD employees who have EB).
4
Combine the resulting 'some' statement with the remaining 'all' condition.
The MD employees who are ~SOR are in the marketing department. Since all MD employees are H5, those specific ~SOR employees are also H5. Therefore, some H5 employees are ~SOR.
This yields the final, 100% provable deduction connecting the hiring timeline to overtime eligibility.

Anahtar Kavram

Formal logic deductions combining universal conditionals (all/none) with existential quantifiers (some).
Soru 87Soru →

According to the new telecommunications regulations, any internet service provider (ISP) that receives a rural expansion grant must comply with the federal data retention mandate. Complying with this mandate requires the ISP to maintain physical servers within the federal territory. Furthermore, no ISP that maintains physical servers within the federal territory is eligible for the small-business tax exemption. ApexNet is an ISP that receives a rural expansion grant, while Connectia is an ISP that is eligible for the small-business tax exemption.

Based on the information above, which of the following statements must be true? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: ApexNet is not eligible for the small-business tax exemption.; Connectia does not receive a rural expansion grant.

Cevap

The statements that must be true are: ApexNet is not eligible for the small-business tax exemption, and Connectia does not receive a rural expansion grant.
The correct statements follow directly from valid conditional reasoning. The stimulus establishes a chain: Rural Expansion Grant → Comply with Mandate → Maintain Servers → Not Eligible for Exemption. Because ApexNet triggers the first sufficient condition (it receives the grant), the final necessary condition must follow (it is not eligible for the exemption). Furthermore, the contrapositive of this chain dictates: Eligible for Exemption → Do Not Maintain Servers → Do Not Comply with Mandate → No Rural Expansion Grant. Because Connectia triggers the sufficient condition of this contrapositive chain (it is eligible for the exemption), the final necessary condition must follow (it does not receive the grant).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional statements provided in the stimulus.
Grant → Mandate → Physical Servers → Not Exempt
To establish the primary logical chain of necessary and sufficient conditions.
2
Form the contrapositive of the entire logical chain.
Exempt → No Physical Servers → No Mandate → No Grant
To determine what deductions can be made when the necessary conditions are not met.
3
Apply the established rules to the specific entities mentioned (ApexNet and Connectia).
ApexNet receives the grant, so we follow the positive chain to conclude it is not exempt. Connectia is exempt, so we follow the contrapositive chain to conclude it does not receive the grant.
To identify which answer choices represent guaranteed logical deductions.

Anahtar Kavram

Must Be True Questions
Soru 88Soru →

According to the newly established ethical guidelines for artificial intelligence, an AI system is considered ethically compliant only if it both maintains transparent decision-making and undergoes biannual independent audits. Furthermore, unless a system possesses continuous human oversight, it cannot maintain transparent decision-making. No AI system is approved for public deployment without being considered ethically compliant.

Which one of the following conclusions can be logically drawn from the guidelines above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any AI system that either lacks continuous human oversight or fails to undergo biannual independent audits will not be approved for public deployment.

Cevap

The statement that any AI system lacking either continuous human oversight or biannual independent audits will not be approved for public deployment.
The stimulus allows us to build a logical chain: Public Deployment requires Ethical Compliance. Ethical Compliance requires both Transparent Decision-Making and Biannual Audits. Transparent Decision-Making requires Human Oversight. Chaining these together: Public Deployment requires both Human Oversight and Biannual Audits. The correct answer is the contrapositive of this final chain: if an AI system lacks Human Oversight OR lacks Biannual Audits, it cannot be approved for Public Deployment.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first premise into formal logic.
Ethically Compliant (EC) -> Transparent Decision-Making (TDM) AND Biannual Audits (BA)
The phrase 'only if' introduces necessary conditions. Both TDM and BA are required for EC.
2
Translate the second premise into formal logic.
NOT Human Oversight (HO) -> NOT Transparent Decision-Making (TDM). Contrapositive: TDM -> HO.
The word 'unless' introduces a necessary condition, meaning HO is necessary for TDM.
3
Translate the third premise into formal logic.
Public Deployment (PR) -> Ethically Compliant (EC)
The phrase 'No... without' means EC is a necessary prerequisite for PR.
4
Synthesize the conditional chain.
PR -> EC -> (TDM AND BA). Furthermore, TDM -> HO. Therefore, PR -> (HO AND BA).
By transitive property, if PR requires EC, and EC requires both TDM and BA, then PR requires both TDM and BA. Since TDM also requires HO, PR ultimately requires both HO and BA.
5
Formulate the contrapositive of the synthesized chain.
NOT (HO AND BA) -> NOT PR, which translates via De Morgan's laws to: (NOT HO OR NOT BA) -> NOT PR.
To find a valid deduction that matches the answer choices, we negate and reverse the final chain. Negating 'AND' turns it into 'OR'.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements and Compound Contrapositives
Soru 89Soru →

According to interstellar quarantine protocols, a celestial body is designated as a Class-Alpha hazard only if it harbors extremophile bacteria or emits anomalous radiation. No celestial body without a stable magnetosphere can harbor extremophile bacteria. Furthermore, emitting anomalous radiation requires a subterranean thermal vent, and any celestial body with a subterranean thermal vent possesses a stable magnetosphere. Finally, unless a celestial body features a crystalline core, it cannot have a stable magnetosphere.

Which one of the following statements logically follows from the quarantine protocols?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any celestial body that does not feature a crystalline core cannot be designated as a Class-Alpha hazard.

Cevap

Any celestial body that does not feature a crystalline core cannot be designated as a Class-Alpha hazard.
The correct answer accurately states the contrapositive of the synthesized logical chain. The stimulus establishes that a Class-Alpha hazard requires either extremophile bacteria or anomalous radiation. Because both of these possibilities independently mandate the presence of a stable magnetosphere, any Class-Alpha hazard must possess a stable magnetosphere. The final sentence establishes that a stable magnetosphere requires a crystalline core. Thus, any Class-Alpha hazard must feature a crystalline core. Taking the contrapositive of this relationship yields: if a celestial body lacks a crystalline core, it cannot be a Class-Alpha hazard.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the initial classification rule.
Class-Alpha Hazard (CAH) → Extremophile Bacteria (EB) OR Anomalous Radiation (AR).
The indicator phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition, which in this case is a compound 'or' statement.
2
Diagram the extremophile bacteria condition.
Extremophile Bacteria (EB) → Stable Magnetosphere (SM).
The phrasing 'No X without Y' translates directly to 'If X, then Y' (or mathematically, ~Y → ~X, which contraposes to X → Y).
3
Diagram the anomalous radiation conditions.
Anomalous Radiation (AR) → Thermal Vent (STV) → Stable Magnetosphere (SM). Therefore, AR → SM.
'Requires' introduces a necessary condition, and 'any' introduces a sufficient condition. Both statements chain together directly to SM.
4
Synthesize the branches.
Class-Alpha Hazard (CAH) → Stable Magnetosphere (SM).
Because CAH requires either EB or AR, and BOTH of those conditions independently require SM, it is guaranteed that CAH requires SM.
5
Diagram the final condition and form the contrapositive.
Stable Magnetosphere (SM) → Crystalline Core (CC). The full chain is CAH → CC. Contrapositive: ~CC → ~CAH.
'Unless X, cannot Y' means 'If Y, then X'. Connecting this to our synthesis yields CAH → SM → CC. Negating and reversing the ends provides the valid deduction.

Anahtar Kavram

Synthesizing conditional chains involving disjunctions and deriving the valid contrapositive of a multi-step deduction.
Soru 90Soru →

Every commercial aircraft manufactured by AeroFlight Industries is equipped with the advanced automated navigation suite. Furthermore, no aircraft equipped with the advanced automated navigation suite requires a dedicated human navigator on board.

Based on the information above, it must be true that no commercial aircraft manufactured by AeroFlight Industries requires a dedicated human navigator on board.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The correct answer is True because the two premises form a perfect transitive conditional chain. 'Every A is B' combined with 'No B is C' yields the logically provable conclusion 'No A is C'. Therefore, the statement that no AeroFlight commercial aircraft require a dedicated human navigator is 100% proven from the text.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first premise to establish its conditional relationship.
If an aircraft is an AeroFlight commercial aircraft, then it is equipped with the advanced automated navigation suite.
Translating absolute statements ('Every...') into formal conditional logic helps identify necessary and sufficient conditions.
2
Analyze the second premise to establish its conditional relationship.
If an aircraft is equipped with the advanced automated navigation suite, then it does not require a dedicated human navigator on board.
Translating negative absolute statements ('no...') connects the sufficient condition to a negative necessary condition.
3
Combine the conditional relationships into a logical chain.
AeroFlight commercial aircraft → advanced automated navigation suite → does NOT require a dedicated human navigator.
If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C (the transitive property of conditionals).
4
Evaluate the statement provided at the end of the stem against the established logical chain.
The statement accurately reflects the valid deduction (AeroFlight commercial aircraft → does NOT require a dedicated human navigator).
To verify if a statement must be true, it must be directly proven by the premises without any outside assumptions.

Anahtar Kavram

Transitive Conditional Logic
Soru 91Soru →

Any geological formation that features stalactites is composed primarily of limestone. Furthermore, any geological formation that is composed primarily of limestone is highly susceptible to acid rain degradation. The recently discovered Echo Caverns feature numerous stalactites.

Which of the following must be true based on the information above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The Echo Caverns are highly susceptible to acid rain degradation.

Cevap

The Echo Caverns are highly susceptible to acid rain degradation.
The stimulus provides a direct chain of conditional logic. The first sentence establishes that having stalactites requires being composed of limestone. The second sentence establishes that being composed of limestone requires being highly susceptible to acid rain degradation. By linking these together, we deduce that having stalactites guarantees high susceptibility to acid rain degradation. Since we are told as a fact that the Echo Caverns feature stalactites, it logically and unavoidably follows that they are highly susceptible to acid rain degradation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first sentence into a conditional statement.
If a formation has stalactites, then it is composed primarily of limestone.
To establish the first link in the logical chain.
2
Translate the second sentence into a conditional statement.
If a formation is composed primarily of limestone, then it is highly susceptible to acid rain degradation.
To establish the second link in the logical chain.
3
Combine the statements from steps 1 and 2.
If a formation has stalactites, then it is highly susceptible to acid rain degradation.
To form a transitive deduction bridging the two premises.
4
Apply the deduced rule to the specific case given in the stimulus.
Because Echo Caverns have stalactites, they must be highly susceptible to acid rain degradation.
To find the provable conclusion that matches one of the answer choices.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining formal conditional statements to form valid transitive deductions.
Soru 92Soru →

A hospital credentialing committee has established a set of rules for surgeons seeking to perform a newly approved neuro-robotic procedure. Order the following propositions to construct a logically valid, unbroken chain of deduction from the sufficient condition of a surgeon being granted full procedural privileges to the necessary condition of the hospital paying an enhanced liability surcharge.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence translates to: Privileges → Simulation → Certification → Residency → Surcharge.
To construct a valid deductive chain from 'full procedural privileges' to 'enhanced liability surcharge', we must logically connect the sufficient and necessary conditions of each statement. The first proposition uses 'only if' to establish 'procedural privileges' as a sufficient condition for 'biometric simulation' (Privileges → Simulation). The second proposition uses 'guarantees' with negative terms; its contrapositive establishes that passing the simulation requires certification (Simulation → Certification). The third proposition uses 'cannot... unless' to show that certification requires a residency (Certification → Residency). Finally, the fourth proposition states that the residency is a sufficient trigger for the surcharge (Residency → Surcharge). Connecting these links yields the unbroken chain: Privileges → Simulation → Certification → Residency → Surcharge.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the starting sufficient condition and its corresponding necessary condition.
The initial sufficient condition is 'granted full procedural privileges'. The proposition '...granted full procedural privileges only if they have successfully passed the rigorous biometric simulation' establishes the first link: Privileges → Simulation.
To build a forward deductive chain, we must start with the initial trigger specified in the prompt.
2
Find the proposition where 'passing the biometric simulation' acts as the sufficient condition.
The proposition 'Failing to hold specialized board certification... guarantees that a surgeon will not pass the rigorous biometric simulation' translates to ~Certification → ~Simulation. The contrapositive is Simulation → Certification.
The sufficient condition of the next link must identically match the necessary condition of the previous link (Simulation) to maintain an unbroken chain.
3
Find the proposition where 'holding specialized board certification' acts as the sufficient condition.
The proposition 'A surgeon cannot hold specialized board certification... unless they have completed the mandatory peer-reviewed residency' translates to Certification → Residency.
The 'unless' indicator modifies the necessary condition, meaning the remaining negated statement becomes the sufficient condition.
4
Find the proposition linking the residency to the final required outcome.
The proposition 'The completion of the mandatory peer-reviewed residency... is sufficient to require the hospital to pay an enhanced liability surcharge' translates to Residency → Surcharge.
This establishes the final necessary condition required by the prompt, completing the valid deduction.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chain Construction and Contrapositives
Soru 93Soru →

The Ministry of Economics recently published a report on international trade frameworks. According to the report, any nation that implements the Comprehensive Tariff Reduction Protocol (CTRP) will experience an immediate increase in foreign direct investment. Furthermore, a nation cannot participate in the Global Tech Exchange Network (GTEN) unless it has implemented the CTRP. Most nations that experience an immediate increase in foreign direct investment also see a short-term rise in domestic inflation. Finally, no nation that currently has a sovereign debt crisis is a participant in GTEN.

Based strictly on the statements in the Ministry of Economics report, which of the following statements must be true? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any participant in the Global Tech Exchange Network will experience an immediate increase in foreign direct investment.; Any nation that has not experienced an immediate increase in foreign direct investment is not participating in the Global Tech Exchange Network.

Cevap

The correct statements are that any participant in the Global Tech Exchange Network will experience an immediate increase in foreign direct investment, and that any nation failing to experience this increase is not participating in the network.
Based on the stimulus, we have two critical conditional rules: 'GTEN → CTRP' and 'CTRP → FDI Increase'. By linking these together, we derive the absolute rule 'GTEN → FDI Increase'. This proves the statement asserting that any GTEN participant will experience an FDI increase. Furthermore, the contrapositive of this valid chain is '~FDI Increase → ~GTEN'. This mathematically proves the statement asserting that any nation without an FDI increase cannot be a participant in GTEN. Both are undeniably true based on the provided text.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the text into formal logical statements.
1: CTRP → FDI Increase. 2: GTEN → CTRP. 3: FDI Increase -most→ Inflation. 4: Debt Crisis → ~GTEN.
Formalizing the premises prevents misinterpretation of complex syntax and conditional indicators like 'any' and 'unless'.
2
Identify connections between the absolute conditional statements to form a chain.
Premise 2 (GTEN → CTRP) connects to Premise 1 (CTRP → FDI Increase) to form the chain: GTEN → CTRP → FDI Increase.
Chaining conditional statements reveals overarching deductive truths that are not explicitly stated but are 100% mathematically certain.
3
Derive the direct inference and its contrapositive from the chain.
Direct Inference: GTEN → FDI Increase. Contrapositive: ~FDI Increase → ~GTEN.
Any valid conditional statement always yields a valid contrapositive by negating and reversing the terms.
4
Evaluate the answer choices against these derived truths.
The statement about GTEN participants experiencing FDI increases matches the direct inference. The statement about nations lacking an FDI increase not participating in GTEN matches the contrapositive.
In a Must Be True question, the correct answers must be undeniably proven by the text, while incorrect answers will represent logical fallacies or unsupported leaps.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chaining and Contrapositives
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 94Soru →

In oceanography, any oceanic trench that forms at a convergent plate boundary frequently experiences deep-focus earthquakes. Furthermore, any geological structure that frequently experiences deep-focus earthquakes must feature a subducting lithospheric plate. However, extensive geological surveys demonstrate that no oceanic trench in the Kyra Basin features a subducting lithospheric plate. Additionally, some geological structures that feature subducting lithospheric plates are also characterized by volcanic arc formation.

Which of the following must be true based on the information above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: No oceanic trench in the Kyra Basin forms at a convergent plate boundary.

Cevap

No oceanic trench in the Kyra Basin forms at a convergent plate boundary.
The stimulus sets up a formal conditional chain: forming at a convergent plate boundary guarantees deep-focus earthquakes, which in turn guarantees the presence of a subducting lithospheric plate. We are then told that trenches in the Kyra Basin do NOT have a subducting lithospheric plate. Applying the contrapositive of our chain, if the necessary condition (subducting plate) is absent, the sufficient conditions that lead to it must also be absent. Thus, a Kyra Basin trench cannot experience deep-focus earthquakes, and consequently, it cannot form at a convergent plate boundary. The correct answer precisely states this guaranteed deduction.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the first conditional premise.
Forms at Convergent Boundary → Frequently Experiences Deep-Focus Earthquakes
The word 'any' introduces a sufficient condition.
2
Map the second conditional premise and link it to the first.
Frequently Experiences Deep-Focus Earthquakes → Subducting Lithospheric Plate. Chain: Convergent Boundary → Deep-Focus Earthquakes → Subducting Plate
The phrase 'must feature' introduces a necessary condition that perfectly bridges from the first premise.
3
Apply the new factual premise to the conditional chain.
Kyra Basin Trench → NO Subducting Lithospheric Plate
The stimulus introduces a specific absolute fact about the Kyra Basin.
4
Form the contrapositive to find the logically guaranteed conclusion.
NO Subducting Plate → NO Deep-Focus Earthquakes → NO Convergent Boundary. Therefore, Kyra Basin Trench → NO Convergent Boundary.
If the necessary condition at the end of a chain is not met, the preceding sufficient conditions must also be false.

Anahtar Kavram

Must Be True Questions
Soru 95Soru →

A civil aviation authority is formalizing its autonomous vehicle protocols into a logical database. The fundamental propositions are defined as follows:

AA: The airspace is restricted
BB: The beacon is activated
CC: The clearance is revoked
DD: The drone is grounded

Match each complex English regulatory rule to a logically equivalent formal representation. (Note: ∼\sim denotes logical negation, and →\rightarrow denotes implication. The correct formal representations may be in their contrapositive forms.)

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The airspace is restricted unless the beacon is activated.
The drone is grounded only if the airspace is restricted and the clearance is revoked.
The only drones that are grounded are those for which the beacon is not activated.
Activating the beacon without revoking the clearance ensures that the drone is grounded.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings are: Left 1 with Right 2, Left 2 with Right 4, Left 3 with Right 1, and Left 4 with Right 3.
Each correct pair logically links a complex English conditional statement to its precise formal contrapositive. Success requires two distinct analytical actions: accurately diagramming the initial statement using syntactic indicator words, and then strictly applying logical negation rules (including De Morgan's Laws for compound conditions) to locate the equivalent formal expression.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the 'unless' statement (Left 1).
Yields ∼B→A\sim B \rightarrow A. Then form the contrapositive to find the match: ∼A→B\sim A \rightarrow B (Right 2).
Statements using 'unless' require treating the modified term as necessary, and negating the remaining term as sufficient. Since the direct translation is absent, the contrapositive is required.
2
Translate the 'only if' statement containing a compound necessary condition (Left 2).
Yields D→(A and C)D \rightarrow (A \text{ and } C). Applying the contrapositive and De Morgan's Laws yields (∼A or ∼C)→∼D(\sim A \text{ or } \sim C) \rightarrow \sim D (Right 4).
Indicator 'only if' designates the necessary condition. When negating a compound 'and' statement during contraposition, it must flip to an 'or'.
3
Translate 'The only' statement (Left 3).
Yields D→∼BD \rightarrow \sim B. Its contrapositive is B→∼DB \rightarrow \sim D (Right 1).
The phrase 'The only' identifies the sufficient condition. Negating both sides and reversing gives the proper contrapositive.
4
Translate the 'ensures' statement with a 'without' modifier (Left 4).
Yields (B and ∼C)→D(B \text{ and } \sim C) \rightarrow D. The contrapositive is ∼D→(∼B or C)\sim D \rightarrow (\sim B \text{ or } C) (Right 3).
'Ensures' functions as an 'if' (sufficient). 'Without' acts as an 'and not'. Applying De Morgan's Laws to the contrapositive flips the 'and' back to an 'or'.

Anahtar Kavram

Advanced Conditional Logic: Translating complex English indicators ('unless', 'only if', 'the only') and applying De Morgan's Laws to form contrapositives of compound statements.
Soru 96Soru →

To properly classify organisms within the newly discovered Solaria fungal ecosystem, botanists adhere to strict taxonomic rules. A specimen is categorized as a bioluminescent species only if it synthesizes the compound luciferyl. Moreover, no fungus in this ecosystem synthesizes luciferyl without also maintaining a symbiotic relationship with local root systems. Finally, exhibiting a rapid spore-dispersal mechanism requires that the fungus not maintain a symbiotic relationship with local root systems.

Based on the botanists' taxonomic rules, which one of the following statements must be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any specimen in the Solaria ecosystem that exhibits a rapid spore-dispersal mechanism is not categorized as a bioluminescent species.

Cevap

The statement declaring that any specimen exhibiting a rapid spore-dispersal mechanism is not categorized as a bioluminescent species.
The stimulus provides three conditional statements. First: Bioluminescent -> Synthesizes luciferyl. Second: Synthesizes luciferyl -> Symbiotic relationship. Connecting these gives: Bioluminescent -> Synthesizes luciferyl -> Symbiotic relationship. The third statement is: Rapid spore-dispersal -> NO Symbiotic relationship. The contrapositive of this third statement is: Symbiotic relationship -> NO Rapid spore-dispersal. By attaching this contrapositive to the end of our initial chain, we establish a complete unbroken chain: Bioluminescent -> Synthesizes luciferyl -> Symbiotic relationship -> NO Rapid spore-dispersal. This proves that any bioluminescent species cannot have a rapid spore-dispersal mechanism. The contrapositive of this overarching deduction is that any fungus with rapid spore-dispersal is not bioluminescent. The correct answer choice explicitly states this valid contrapositive.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the first sentence.
Bioluminescent -> Synthesizes luciferyl
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition.
2
Diagram the second sentence.
Synthesizes luciferyl -> Symbiotic relationship
The phrase 'no [X] without [Y]' means that X is sufficient to guarantee Y.
3
Diagram the third sentence.
Rapid spore-dispersal -> NO Symbiotic relationship
The word 'requires' introduces a necessary condition, which in this case is negative.
4
Form the logical chain.
Bioluminescent -> Synthesizes luciferyl -> Symbiotic relationship
The necessary condition of the first premise is the sufficient condition of the second.
5
Integrate the third premise into the chain via contraposition.
Symbiotic relationship -> NO Rapid spore-dispersal
The contrapositive of (Rapid spore-dispersal -> NO Symbiotic relationship) allows it to link to the end of our existing chain.
6
Make the final deduction.
Bioluminescent -> NO Rapid spore-dispersal. Contrapositive: Rapid spore-dispersal -> NO Bioluminescent.
By following the continuous directional arrows of the full chain, the first sufficient condition inevitably leads to the final necessary condition.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 97Soru →

Any deep-sea cephalopod that inhabits the abyssal zone relies on bioluminescence for camouflage. Most deep-sea cephalopods that rely on bioluminescence for camouflage have specialized photophore organs. However, no deep-sea cephalopod with specialized photophore organs is a filter feeder. Yet, it is documented that some deep-sea cephalopods that inhabit the abyssal zone are filter feeders.

Which one of the following statements must be true on the basis of the information above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Some deep-sea cephalopods that rely on bioluminescence for camouflage do not have specialized photophore organs.

Cevap

The correct statement is that some deep-sea cephalopods that rely on bioluminescence for camouflage do not have specialized photophore organs.
The stimulus establishes that some abyssal zone cephalopods are filter feeders. Because all abyssal zone cephalopods rely on bioluminescence, it must be true that some filter feeders rely on bioluminescence. We are also told that no cephalopod with specialized photophore organs is a filter feeder, meaning that all filter feeders lack these organs. Therefore, the specific filter feeders that rely on bioluminescence cannot have specialized photophore organs, mathematically guaranteeing that some cephalopods relying on bioluminescence lack these organs.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the relationship between abyssal zone inhabitants and filter feeders.
The stimulus states that some abyssal zone cephalopods are filter feeders.
This establishes a specific sub-group of cephalopods that possess two traits: inhabiting the abyssal zone and being filter feeders.
2
Chain this sub-group to the rule regarding bioluminescence.
Since all abyssal zone cephalopods rely on bioluminescence, the filter-feeding abyssal cephalopods must also rely on bioluminescence.
This proves the existence of cephalopods that are both filter feeders and rely on bioluminescence.
3
Apply the conditional rule regarding photophore organs.
The stimulus states that no cephalopod with photophore organs is a filter feeder, meaning that all filter feeders completely lack photophore organs.
This forms the contrapositive of the 'no' statement provided in the text.
4
Synthesize the deductions.
The filter feeders that rely on bioluminescence must lack photophore organs, proving that some cephalopods relying on bioluminescence lack them.
Combining the overlapping traits guarantees that at least some members of the larger group (bioluminescent-reliant) lack the organs.

Anahtar Kavram

Must Be True Questions
Soru 98Soru →

A corporation can export restricted quantum processors only if it secures a Tier-1 license and undergoes a multilateral security review. Furthermore, securing a Tier-1 license requires that the corporation has no prior compliance violations. Finally, unless a corporation maintains a fully localized supply chain, it cannot undergo a multilateral security review.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any corporation that exports restricted quantum processors has no prior compliance violations and maintains a fully localized supply chain.

Cevap

The correct answer states that any corporation exporting restricted quantum processors must have no prior compliance violations and must maintain a fully localized supply chain.
The stimulus establishes a clear chain of conditional dependencies. We are given that exporting restricted quantum processors requires two distinct things: a Tier-1 license and a multilateral security review. We are subsequently informed that a Tier-1 license requires having no prior compliance violations, and that a multilateral security review requires maintaining a fully localized supply chain. By chaining these requirements together, we can logically deduce that if a corporation actually exports the processors, it must successfully meet all of these underlying prerequisites. Therefore, it is definitively true that such a corporation has no prior compliance violations and maintains a fully localized supply chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first premise into formal logic.
Export (E) → Tier-1 License (T1) AND Multilateral Security Review (MSR).
The phrase 'only if' introduces necessary conditions. Both securing the license and undergoing the review are strictly required in order to export.
2
Translate the second premise into formal logic.
Tier-1 License (T1) → No Compliance Violations (No-V).
The word 'requires' indicates that having no prior violations is a necessary condition for obtaining the Tier-1 license.
3
Translate the third premise into formal logic.
Multilateral Security Review (MSR) → Localized Supply Chain (LSC).
The construct 'Unless A, B' translates to 'If not A, then B'. 'Unless localized supply chain (LSC), cannot undergo review (not MSR)' becomes 'If not LSC, then not MSR', which contraposes to 'MSR → LSC'.
4
Synthesize the conditional statements into a unified deductive chain.
E → (T1 AND MSR). Since T1 → No-V and MSR → LSC, substitution yields: E → (No-V AND LSC).
By applying the transitive property of conditional logic, if the sufficient condition (exporting) is met, all downstream necessary conditions must also be met.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements and Formulating Transitive Chains
Soru 99Soru →

At the National Historical Repository, any researcher who is granted access to the restricted archives must possess a Level 4 security clearance. Furthermore, anyone who possesses a Level 4 security clearance has passed a rigorous federal background investigation. Dr. Aris is currently conducting research in the restricted archives.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Dr. Aris has passed a rigorous federal background investigation.

Cevap

Dr. Aris has passed a rigorous federal background investigation.
The correct answer properly combines the conditional statements provided in the stimulus. The text states: Access -> Level 4 Clearance, and Level 4 Clearance -> Background Investigation. Therefore, Access -> Background Investigation. Since the text explicitly confirms Dr. Aris has access, it must be true that Dr. Aris passed the investigation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the first conditional statement in the text.
Access to restricted archives implies possessing a Level 4 security clearance.
This establishes the requirements for the first group mentioned.
2
Identify the second conditional statement in the text.
Possessing a Level 4 security clearance implies passing a rigorous federal background investigation.
This establishes what is necessarily true about anyone holding the clearance.
3
Chain the two conditional statements together.
Access to restricted archives implies passing a rigorous federal background investigation.
Because the necessary condition of the first statement is the sufficient condition of the second, they form a transitive chain.
4
Apply the given factual premise to the conditional chain.
Since Dr. Aris has access to the restricted archives, Dr. Aris must have passed the rigorous federal background investigation.
This directly yields the correct, 100% provable answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional statements to deduce a logically guaranteed conclusion.
Soru 100Soru →

Information: Every manuscript accepted for publication by Ardent Press undergoes a rigorous triple-blind review process. No manuscript that undergoes a rigorous triple-blind review process is published within six months of its initial submission. Furthermore, most manuscripts authored by Dr. Kinsley are published within six months of their initial submission.

Statement: Based on the provided information, at least some of the manuscripts authored by Dr. Kinsley are not accepted for publication by Ardent Press.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is logically guaranteed. The contrapositive of the premises shows that anything published within six months is not accepted by Ardent Press. Since most of Dr. Kinsley's manuscripts fall into this category, most are not accepted. The phrase 'at least some' is a subset of 'most', making the statement mathematically true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional statements regarding Ardent Press publications.
Accepted by Ardent Press -> Triple-blind review -> NOT published within six months.
To establish the logical rules governing publication and review times.
2
Form the contrapositive of the established conditional chain.
Published within six months -> NOT triple-blind review -> NOT accepted by Ardent Press.
To connect the general rule to the specific information given about manuscripts published within six months.
3
Evaluate Dr. Kinsley's manuscripts against the contrapositive.
Since most of Dr. Kinsley's manuscripts are published within six months, most are not accepted by Ardent Press.
To apply the general contrapositive rule to the specific subset of manuscripts provided in the premises.
4
Assess the final statement's quantifier against the deduction.
The statement claims 'at least some' are not accepted. Since we proved 'most' are not accepted, 'at least some' must logically follow.
To ensure the logical force of the conclusion is fully supported by the premises, as 'most' mathematically guarantees 'at least some'.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional statements, forming contrapositives, and applying quantifier deductions.
ÖncekiSayfa 5 / 11Sonraki
Inference and Deduction Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 5 | Examkin