Examkin

Cannot Be True Questions

14 soru

Tüm türler14Çoktan seçmeli8Doğru / Yanlış6
Soru 1Soru →

In order to qualify for the accelerated development grant, a local infrastructure project must be classified as high-priority by the regional council and must secure matching private investments. Any infrastructure project that secures matching private investments is subject to the strict environmental oversight of the federal preservation board. However, no project proposed by the municipal transit authority is subject to this strict environmental oversight. Nevertheless, some projects proposed by the municipal transit authority are classified as high-priority by the regional council.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following cannot be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A project proposed by the municipal transit authority qualifies for the accelerated development grant.

Cevap

The option stating that a project proposed by the municipal transit authority qualifies for the accelerated development grant cannot be true.
The stimulus establishes a conditional chain that rules out municipal transit authority projects from qualifying for the grant. To qualify for the accelerated development grant, a project must secure matching private investments. Any project with matching private investments is subject to strict environmental oversight. Therefore, qualifying for the grant strictly requires being subject to environmental oversight. However, the stimulus explicitly states that no project proposed by the municipal transit authority is subject to this oversight. Consequently, no municipal transit authority project can ever secure matching private investments, making it impossible for any such project to satisfy the necessary conditions for the grant.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditions required to qualify for the grant.
Grant -> High-Priority AND Matching Investments.
Translating the text into formal logic simplifies the complex conditional rules.
2
Map the consequences of securing matching investments.
Matching Investments -> Strict Oversight.
Connecting terms allows us to build a deductive chain.
3
Map the rules regarding the municipal transit authority.
Transit Authority -> NOT Strict Oversight. (Additionally, Transit Authority -some- High-Priority).
Identifying absolute constraints on specific entities reveals logical impossibilities.
4
Combine the rules to test if a transit authority project can logically qualify for the grant.
Transit Authority -> NOT Strict Oversight -> NOT Matching Investments -> NOT Grant.
Since transit projects cannot secure matching investments, they fail a necessary condition for the grant, making their qualification logically impossible.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional statements to identify a logically impossible outcome.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 2Soru →

If a student takes Advanced Physics, they must have already completed Calculus. No student who has completed Calculus is eligible for the introductory math seminar. Julian is currently taking Advanced Physics.

Based on the information above, which one of the following cannot be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Julian is eligible for the introductory math seminar.

Cevap

The correct answer is the statement that Julian is eligible for the introductory math seminar.
The stimulus states that taking Advanced Physics guarantees that a student has completed Calculus, and completing Calculus guarantees that a student is not eligible for the introductory math seminar. Therefore, taking Advanced Physics guarantees ineligibility for the introductory math seminar. Since Julian is taking Advanced Physics, it is a proven fact that he is not eligible for the seminar. The correct option contradicts this proven fact, making it impossible to be true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the first conditional relationship.
Taking Advanced Physics requires completing Calculus (Advanced Physics -> Calculus).
This establishes the necessary condition for taking Advanced Physics.
2
Identify the second conditional relationship.
Completing Calculus means a student is not eligible for the introductory math seminar (Calculus -> Not Eligible for Intro Math).
This establishes what happens once Calculus is completed.
3
Chain the conditionals together.
Advanced Physics -> Calculus -> Not Eligible for Intro Math.
Transitive logic allows us to connect the first and second statements.
4
Apply the rule to the specific case of Julian.
Because Julian is taking Advanced Physics, he must not be eligible for the introductory math seminar.
Julian triggers the sufficient condition of the chained conditionals.
5
Evaluate the options to find the one that contradicts the deduction.
The statement claiming Julian is eligible for the introductory math seminar is logically impossible.
A 'cannot be true' question asks for the option that directly violates the facts established in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Cannot Be True Questions
Soru 3Soru →

The charter of the Global Botanical Society mandates that every researcher deployed to the Alpine Tundra biome complete advanced avalanche survival training. Furthermore, no individual who has completed advanced avalanche survival training is eligible to lead the primary basecamp logistics team. All scientists employed by the Northern Institute are currently deployed as researchers to the Alpine Tundra biome. Therefore, it is logically possible for a scientist employed by the Northern Institute to lead the primary basecamp logistics team.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false because it directly contradicts the logical deductions derived from the premises. Since all Northern Institute scientists are in the Alpine Tundra, they all must take avalanche training. Because anyone with avalanche training is barred from leading the logistics team, it is impossible for a Northern Institute scientist to hold that position.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the rules into formal conditional logic.
Northern Institute (NI) → Alpine Tundra (AT); AT → Avalanche Training (AST); AST → NOT Logistics Team (LT).
Formalizing the rules ensures no logical connections are missed and allows for accurate chaining.
2
Chain the conditional statements together.
NI → AT → AST → NOT LT.
Chaining reveals the necessary deductions that must logically follow from the premises.
3
Evaluate the target statement against the deductions.
The target statement claims it is logically possible for an NI scientist to be on the LT. However, the chain definitively proves that all NI scientists are NOT on the LT.
A statement claiming something is possible when the premises dictate it is strictly impossible cannot be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Cannot Be True Questions
Soru 4Soru →

If a wetland area is designated as a Tier 1 Reserve, it must contain either endangered amphibian habitats or pristine coral structures. Any wetland area containing pristine coral structures is strictly protected from commercial fishing. The recently evaluated Oakhaven Estuary is designated as a Tier 1 Reserve, yet it is not strictly protected from commercial fishing.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following cannot be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Oakhaven Estuary lacks endangered amphibian habitats.

Cevap

The statement that Oakhaven Estuary lacks endangered amphibian habitats cannot be true, as logical deduction proves it must contain them.
The correct answer explicitly contradicts a valid deduction made from the stimulus. Since Oakhaven is a Tier 1 Reserve, it must contain either amphibian habitats or coral structures. Because it is not strictly protected from commercial fishing, the contrapositive of the second premise dictates that it cannot contain coral structures. Therefore, it is mathematically required to contain endangered amphibian habitats. A statement claiming it lacks these habitats is logically impossible.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first sentence into formal conditional logic.
Tier 1 Reserve →\rightarrow (Endangered Amphibian Habitats ∨\lor Pristine Coral Structures)
This establishes the necessary conditions for any wetland to be classified as a Tier 1 Reserve.
2
Translate the second sentence into formal conditional logic.
Pristine Coral Structures →\rightarrow Strictly Protected
This establishes the necessary condition for any wetland containing pristine coral structures.
3
Apply the contrapositive of the second condition to the facts provided about Oakhaven Estuary.
Since Oakhaven is NOT strictly protected, it CANNOT contain pristine coral structures (¬\neg Strictly Protected →\rightarrow ¬\neg Pristine Coral).
By the law of contrapositive, if the necessary condition is not met, the sufficient condition cannot be true.
4
Combine the deduction from Step 3 with the first conditional statement regarding Oakhaven Estuary.
Oakhaven is a Tier 1 Reserve, so it must have Amphibian Habitats OR Coral Structures. Since it lacks Coral Structures, it MUST have Endangered Amphibian Habitats.
In an 'either/or' framework, if one option is eliminated, the remaining option must be true.
5
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that contradicts the established facts.
The option stating Oakhaven Estuary lacks endangered amphibian habitats directly contradicts the deduction in Step 4.
A 'Cannot Be True' question asks for the single choice that is logically impossible given the premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Deductive reasoning and contrapositives in multi-step conditional logic.
Soru 5Soru →

Every commercial vehicle operating within the inner city limits must be powered entirely by an electric motor and be registered with the municipal transport authority. Furthermore, no vehicle registered with the municipal transport authority is permitted to exceed a gross weight of eight tons. Currently, several commercial vehicles owned by Apex Freight exceed a gross weight of eight tons.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following cannot be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Some commercial vehicles operating within the inner city limits have a gross weight exceeding eight tons.

Cevap

The statement claiming that some commercial vehicles operating within the inner city limits have a gross weight exceeding eight tons cannot be true.
The stimulus establishes a firm deductive chain: operating in the inner city requires registration, and registration guarantees a weight of eight tons or less. By the transitive property, any vehicle operating in the inner city must weigh eight tons or less. The correct answer states that there are vehicles operating in the inner city that exceed eight tons, which directly contradicts our deduction and is therefore logically impossible.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first conditional requirement.
If a commercial vehicle operates in the inner city limits, it must be powered by an electric motor AND be registered with the municipal transport authority.
To establish the necessary conditions for inner city operation.
2
Analyze the second conditional requirement.
If a vehicle is registered with the municipal transport authority, it CANNOT exceed a gross weight of eight tons.
To establish the limitations placed on registered vehicles.
3
Chain the conditional statements together.
Inner city operation -> Registered -> NOT exceeding eight tons. Therefore, any vehicle operating in the inner city cannot exceed eight tons.
To deduce the implicit rule governing vehicle weight within the inner city.
4
Evaluate the options to find the one that contradicts this deduction.
The option stating that some inner city vehicles exceed eight tons directly violates the deduced rule.
In a 'Cannot Be True' question, the correct answer is the one that is mathematically or logically impossible given the premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional statements to find a direct logical contradiction.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 6Soru →

Any planetary mission targeting a gas giant requires a nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) system. However, no mission utilizing an NTP system can be approved by the International Space Authority (ISA) without a prior decadal survey. The upcoming 'Vanguard' planetary mission has just been approved by the ISA, but it has not been preceded by a decadal survey.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following cannot be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The Vanguard mission is targeting a gas giant.

Cevap

The Vanguard mission is targeting a gas giant.
The premises establish that targeting a gas giant requires an NTP system, and combining an NTP system with ISA approval requires a decadal survey. Because Vanguard has ISA approval without a decadal survey, it cannot possibly have an NTP system. Without an NTP system, the first premise dictates it cannot target a gas giant. Therefore, the statement that Vanguard is targeting a gas giant is a direct logical contradiction and cannot be true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first conditional statement.
If a mission targets a gas giant, it requires an NTP system.
To establish the mandatory requirements for gas giant missions.
2
Analyze the second conditional statement.
If a mission has an NTP system AND is approved by the ISA, it must have a prior decadal survey.
To establish the conditions under which NTP missions are approved.
3
Apply the facts about the Vanguard mission to the conditional rules.
Vanguard is approved by the ISA but lacks a decadal survey. Therefore, the necessary condition for having both NTP and ISA approval is not met.
To determine Vanguard's characteristics based on the rules.
4
Deduce Vanguard's propulsion system and target.
Since Vanguard has ISA approval but no decadal survey, it cannot have an NTP system. Because it lacks an NTP system, it cannot be targeting a gas giant.
To find the logically unavoidable conclusions about Vanguard.
5
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that contradicts the deductions.
The statement that Vanguard targets a gas giant directly contradicts our deduction, making it logically impossible (cannot be true).
The question asks for the statement that cannot be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Cannot Be True Questions
Soru 7Soru →

Under the new municipal regulations, any local business that fails the annual safety inspection is heavily fined and subjected to a mandatory operational audit. Some local businesses that are subjected to a mandatory operational audit receive municipal tax grants. However, no local business that receives a municipal tax grant has ever been heavily fined.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A local business that receives a municipal tax grant failed the annual safety inspection.

Cevap

The statement that a local business receiving a municipal tax grant failed the annual safety inspection cannot be true.
Based on the stimulus, failing the safety inspection guarantees a heavy fine. However, receiving a municipal tax grant guarantees that a business is NOT heavily fined. Therefore, these two conditions are mutually exclusive. It is logically impossible for a business to both fail the inspection and receive a tax grant.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the premises into logical notation.
1. Fails Inspection -> Heavily Fined AND Mandatory Audit. 2. Mandatory Audit 'some' Tax Grant. 3. Tax Grant -> NOT Heavily Fined.
Formalizing the logic prevents confusion when combining statements and checking inferences.
2
Combine the first and third premises using the shared variable 'Heavily Fined'.
Fails Inspection -> Heavily Fined. The contrapositive of the third premise is: Heavily Fined -> NOT Tax Grant. Connecting them yields: Fails Inspection -> NOT Tax Grant.
Connecting conditionals reveals the implicit constraints that dictate what is logically impossible.
3
Evaluate the options against the deduced chain.
The option stating a business receives a grant and fails the inspection directly contradicts the deduction that failing the inspection guarantees NOT receiving a grant.
In a 'Cannot Be True' question, the correct answer must violate a stated premise or a valid deduction.

Anahtar Kavram

Cannot Be True Questions
Soru 8Soru →

Consider the following premises:
All certified lifeguards at Ocean Beach must be able to swim a mile in under 20 minutes. Only individuals who have completed the advanced water rescue course are certified lifeguards at Ocean Beach.

Based on these premises, the scenario in which an individual is a certified lifeguard at Ocean Beach without having completed the advanced water rescue course cannot be true.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The evaluation is true. The premises establish that completing the rescue course is a strict necessary condition for being a lifeguard. A scenario that claims someone is a lifeguard without having taken the course directly violates this condition, meaning the scenario logically cannot be true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional statements in the premises.
The key premise is 'Only individuals who have completed the advanced water rescue course are certified lifeguards at Ocean Beach.'
Identifying formal logic relationships is necessary to determine what is and isn't logically possible.
2
Translate the key premise into a formal conditional relationship.
The word 'only' introduces the necessary condition. Translation: If an individual is a certified lifeguard (sufficient condition), then they must have completed the advanced water rescue course (necessary condition).
Standardizing the logic prevents misinterpretation of sufficient and necessary conditions.
3
Evaluate the proposed scenario against the conditional relationship.
The scenario proposes someone is a certified lifeguard (sufficient condition met) but has NOT completed the course (necessary condition not met).
A scenario cannot logically exist if it affirms a sufficient condition but denies its absolute necessary requirement.
4
Determine the truth value of the evaluation statement.
Since the scenario directly contradicts the established premises, it indeed cannot be true. Therefore, the statement claiming the scenario cannot be true is accurate.
Finalizing the logical deduction to directly answer the prompt.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying logically impossible scenarios based on strict conditional reasoning and necessary conditions introduced by the word 'only'.
Soru 9Soru →

Any commercial aircraft manufactured by AeroStar is equipped with the new Zenith navigation system. An aircraft requires a specialized maintenance team on site to undergo its routine inspections if it is equipped with the Zenith navigation system. The municipal airport in Grandville does not have any specialized maintenance teams on site.

Based on these statements, the following scenario cannot be true: A commercial aircraft manufactured by AeroStar undergoes a routine inspection at the municipal airport in Grandville.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

The statement is true because the provided scenario is logically impossible based on the given conditional rules.
The scenario directly contradicts the deduced contrapositive. Since any AeroStar aircraft requires a specialized team on site, and Grandville does not have one, the event cannot occur.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the first two conditional statements to form a chain.
AeroStar aircraft -> Zenith system. Zenith system -> specialized maintenance team on site. Combined: AeroStar aircraft -> specialized maintenance team on site.
Linking conditional statements is the standard method for determining what must be true or what cannot be true in deductive logic.
2
Apply the contrapositive using the information about Grandville.
Grandville airport -> NO specialized maintenance team on site. Therefore, NO Zenith system, which means NOT an AeroStar aircraft undergoing inspection.
The definitive absence of a necessary condition guarantees the absence of the sufficient conditions that rely upon it.
3
Evaluate the proposed scenario against the deductive proof.
The scenario places an AeroStar aircraft undergoing a routine inspection at a location that strictly cannot support it, creating a direct contradiction.
A scenario that contradicts a valid deductive inference drawn from the premises cannot be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Cannot Be True Questions
Soru 10Soru →

According to international maritime records, any commercial vessel constructed after 2020 that is equipped with a dual-fuel engine is certified for zero-emission operations. Furthermore, no vessel is certified for zero-emission operations unless it utilizes a purely electric auxiliary power system. However, there are no commercial vessels built before 2025 that utilize purely electric auxiliary power systems.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following cannot be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A commercial vessel constructed in 2024 is equipped with a dual-fuel engine.

Cevap

The statement that a commercial vessel constructed in 2024 is equipped with a dual-fuel engine cannot be true, as it creates an impossible set of requirements.
Based on the rules provided, a commercial vessel constructed after 2020 with a dual-fuel engine absolutely must have a purely electric auxiliary power system. However, the final rule strictly forbids any commercial vessel built before 2025 from having this system. Therefore, any commercial vessel constructed in 2021, 2022, 2023, or 2024 is logically prohibited from having a dual-fuel engine.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first premise into conditional logic.
Commercial Vessel AND Constructed After 2020 AND Dual-Fuel Engine → Certified for Zero-Emission.
This establishes the sufficient condition that triggers the certification requirement.
2
Translate the second premise and link it to the first.
Certified for Zero-Emission → Purely Electric Auxiliary System. Therefore, Post-2020 Commercial Dual-Fuel → Purely Electric Auxiliary System.
The word 'unless' introduces a necessary condition, allowing us to form a deductive chain.
3
Analyze the third premise (the constraint).
Commercial Vessel AND Constructed Before 2025 → NOT (Purely Electric Auxiliary System).
This sets a hard boundary on when a commercial vessel can possess the electric system.
4
Evaluate the overlap between the deductive chain and the constraint.
A commercial vessel built between 2021 and 2024 with a dual-fuel engine MUST have an electric system (Step 2) but CANNOT have an electric system (Step 3).
Identifying the overlapping years (after 2020, but before 2025) reveals the logical impossibility that answers the 'Cannot Be True' question.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying a scenario that violates the necessary conclusion of a chained conditional statement combined with a categorical restriction.
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 11Soru →

Consider the following statements:

Any researcher who directs a Phase III clinical trial must hold both a board certification in immunology and a minimum of ten years of clinical practice.
Unless a researcher has published a peer-reviewed virology study, they cannot obtain a board certification in immunology.
Most researchers with a minimum of ten years of clinical practice have never published a peer-reviewed virology study.
Dr. Aris is currently directing a Phase III clinical trial.

Based on these statements, the claim that 'Dr. Aris belongs to the majority of researchers with at least ten years of clinical practice who have never published a peer-reviewed virology study' cannot be true.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The provided claim explicitly contradicts the valid deductive chain derived from the premises, meaning it genuinely cannot be true.
The statement accurately identifies that the internal claim is logically impossible. Dr. Aris directing a trial guarantees he has a board certification, which in turn guarantees he has published a virology study. The claim that he belongs to the majority who have never published this study directly contradicts this proven fact.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional statements provided in the premises.
Directing Trial -> Board Certification AND 10+ Years Practice. Board Certification -> Published Virology Study.
Translating formal logic into a deductive chain is required to track necessary conditions.
2
Apply the conditional chain to the specific subject, Dr. Aris.
Because Dr. Aris is directing a trial, he must have 10+ years of practice AND a Board Certification. Consequently, he must have a Published Virology Study.
This establishes the undeniable facts about Dr. Aris.
3
Evaluate the quantitative statement regarding researchers with 10+ years of practice.
Most (the majority) do NOT have a published study. Therefore, those who DO have a published study make up the minority of this group.
This defines the demographic groups mentioned in the target claim.
4
Compare Dr. Aris's deduced characteristics against the target claim.
The claim places Dr. Aris in the majority (those who have NEVER published the study). The deduction proves Dr. Aris HAS published the study (placing him in the minority).
Identifying this direct contradiction confirms that the claim is logically impossible.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chaining and Subgroup Quantifiers
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 12Soru →

According to the latest archaeological report from the Kaelen Valley excavation: Any ceramic artifact found in Stratum C that exhibits cobalt glazing must have been fired at temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees Celsius. However, extensive structural analysis confirms that no kiln located in the valley's Northern Settlement was capable of sustaining temperatures above 1000 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, all discovered artifacts featuring the 'Crescent Moon' motif were produced exclusively in the kilns of the Northern Settlement and all of them exhibit cobalt glazing.

Statement: Based strictly on the rules provided in the archaeological report, it is logically possible for a ceramic artifact featuring the 'Crescent Moon' motif to have been discovered in Stratum C.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The statement is False, as it describes a logically impossible scenario that directly contradicts the provided deductive chain.
The correct answer is False because the statement claims a scenario is logically possible when the premises strictly prohibit it. A Crescent Moon artifact is necessarily fired in a Northern Settlement kiln (meaning a maximum of 1000 degrees) and has cobalt glazing. According to the first rule, any cobalt-glazed item in Stratum C must be fired above 1000 degrees. Because a single artifact cannot fulfill both conflicting temperature conditions, it physically cannot be found in Stratum C.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional rules regarding Stratum C and temperature.
Artifact found in Stratum C AND exhibits cobalt glazing → Fired > 1000 degrees Celsius.
To establish the baseline requirements for the hypothetical scenario presented in the statement.
2
Map the properties of Crescent Moon artifacts based on the premises.
Crescent Moon motif → Fired in Northern Settlement kilns AND exhibits cobalt glazing.
To explicitly identify the inherent traits of the subject being evaluated.
3
Determine the temperature constraints of the Northern Settlement kilns.
Fired in Northern Settlement kilns → NOT Fired > 1000 degrees Celsius (Max 1000 degrees).
To link the production origin of the artifact to the overarching temperature rules.
4
Synthesize the rules to test the possibility of a Crescent Moon artifact existing in Stratum C.
Placing it in Stratum C triggers the requirement of being fired > 1000 degrees (due to its cobalt glazing). However, its origin in Northern kilns restricts it to ≤ 1000 degrees. This is a direct contradiction, meaning the placement is logically impossible.
To prove via modus tollens that the statement violates the established parameters and therefore cannot be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Cannot Be True Questions
Soru 13Soru →

Under the revised zoning laws of Oakhaven, any developer who constructs a high-density residential complex must secure a municipal waiver. Securing a municipal waiver requires the developer to allocate at least 20 percent of the units for low-income housing, unless the developer has received a historical preservation tax credit. However, no developer who receives a historical preservation tax credit is eligible to apply for the state urban revitalization grant. According to city records, every developer currently constructing a high-density residential complex in Oakhaven has been awarded the state urban revitalization grant.

Based on the information provided, it could be true that there is a developer currently constructing a high-density residential complex in Oakhaven who has not allocated at least 20 percent of the units for low-income housing.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The statement is false. It is logically impossible for a developer in this scenario to avoid allocating at least 20 percent of the units for low-income housing.
The correct evaluation is false. The stimulus establishes that every developer constructing a high-density residential complex has the state urban revitalization grant. Because having a historical preservation tax credit precludes a developer from receiving this grant, none of these current high-density developers have the historical tax credit. To secure the required municipal waiver without possessing the historical tax credit, a developer is strictly required by the 'unless' clause to allocate at least 20 percent of the units for low-income housing. Therefore, the scenario described in the statement is a logical impossibility.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first and final premises regarding high-density developers.
High-Density -> Municipal Waiver, and High-Density -> Revitalization Grant.
To establish the baseline mandatory conditions for all developers currently building high-density complexes.
2
Translate the exclusionary premise and apply its contrapositive.
Historical Credit -> NOT Revitalization Grant. Contrapositive: Revitalization Grant -> NOT Historical Credit.
To connect the developers' known grant status to their eligibility for the tax credit.
3
Translate the 'unless' conditional regarding the municipal waiver.
Municipal Waiver -> Low-Income Allocation OR Historical Credit. This is logically equivalent to: If NOT Historical Credit, then Low-Income Allocation must be met.
'Unless' introduces a necessary condition that must be fulfilled if the alternative condition is absent.
4
Chain the deductions together to determine what must be true.
High-Density developers have the Revitalization Grant. Therefore, they do NOT have the Historical Credit. Because they must have a Municipal Waiver and lack the Historical Credit, they MUST provide the Low-Income Allocation.
To form a complete deductive chain proving that High-Density -> Low-Income Allocation.
5
Evaluate the given statement against the deduced rule.
The statement claims a high-density developer could fail to provide the low-income allocation. Since we proved they absolutely must provide it, the statement describes a scenario that cannot be true, making the statement false.
To answer the prompt based on strict logical necessity.

Anahtar Kavram

Formal logic chaining, contrapositives, and the precise interpretation of 'unless' in conditional statements.
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 14Soru →

The International Cybernetics Commission (ICC) recently adopted strict guidelines regarding neural implants: Any neural implant that enhances motor function must either utilize a bio-synthetic interface or be restricted to therapeutic use only. No implant that is restricted to therapeutic use only can be authorized for competitive sports. Furthermore, every neural implant that utilizes a bio-synthetic interface and is authorized for competitive sports requires a continuous monitoring protocol. Finally, most neural implants that require a continuous monitoring protocol are produced by government-certified labs.

If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A neural implant enhances motor function and is authorized for competitive sports, but it does not require a continuous monitoring protocol.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that an implant enhances motor function and is authorized for competitive sports, but does not require a continuous monitoring protocol.
Based on the rules, any implant that enhances motor function and is authorized for sports MUST utilize a bio-synthetic interface (because being authorized for sports eliminates the therapeutic-only option). Once it is both bio-synthetic and authorized for sports, it MUST require a continuous monitoring protocol. Therefore, it is logically impossible for such an implant to NOT require continuous monitoring.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the statements into formal conditional logic.
1. Motor -> Bio OR Therapeutic.
2. Therapeutic -> NOT Sports.
3. (Bio AND Sports) -> Monitor.
Establishing clear conditional rules is necessary to trace deductive implications.
2
Analyze the necessary conditions for a motor-enhancing implant authorized for sports.
If an implant is Motor and Sports: Because it is Sports, it cannot be Therapeutic (contrapositive of rule 2). Since it is Motor, it must be Bio or Therapeutic. Because it is NOT Therapeutic, it MUST be Bio.
To find what must be true (and thus what cannot be false), we combine intersecting rules.
3
Chain the deduced condition into the final rule.
The implant is now established as Bio AND Sports. Applying Rule 3, it must require Monitor.
This completes the deductive chain: (Motor AND Sports) logically guarantees Monitor.
4
Evaluate the options to find the logically impossible scenario.
The option stating an implant is Motor and Sports, but NOT Monitor directly violates the deduction from step 3.
In a 'Cannot Be True' question, the correct answer is the one that logically contradicts the premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining conditional logic, contrapositives, and identifying logical contradictions.