Examkin

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws

42 soru

Tüm türler42Çoktan seçmeli22Çoklu seçim10Eşleştirme10
Soru 21Soru →

Match each flawed conditional argument with the abstract description that most precisely identifies its logical error.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

If the central bank lowers interest rates, inflation will inevitably rise. The central bank decided not to lower interest rates this quarter, so inflation will not rise.
A masterpiece of classical literature must possess profound psychological insight. The newly discovered manuscript possesses profound psychological insight, therefore it is undoubtedly a masterpiece of classical literature.
Unless a tech startup secures major venture funding, it cannot scale its operations globally. TechNova secured major venture funding last month, meaning it will inevitably scale its operations globally.
Only candidates who hold a master's degree are eligible for the senior analyst position. Marco is not eligible for the senior analyst position, which demonstrates that he does not hold a master's degree.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The central bank argument matches the 'sufficient effect' description; the classical literature argument matches the 'category membership' description; the tech startup argument matches the 'phenomenon occurrence' description; and the senior analyst argument matches the 'state of affairs' description.
Each abstract description perfectly captures the specific structural flaw of the corresponding argument by properly mapping abstract terms (like 'category', 'phenomenon', and 'effect') to the concrete entities in the scenarios.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the central bank scenario.
Identifies the structure: Lower Rates (sufficient) -> Inflation Rises (effect). The argument illegally negates this by concluding that not lowering rates means inflation won't rise.
To map the concrete conditional relationship to the abstract description dealing with effects and sufficient conditions.
2
Analyze the classical literature scenario.
Identifies the structure: Masterpiece (category) -> Insight (required characteristic). The argument reverses this by claiming insight guarantees a masterpiece.
To map the concrete conditional relationship to the abstract description discussing category membership and required characteristics.
3
Analyze the tech startup scenario.
Identifies the structure: Scale (phenomenon) -> Funding (necessary condition). The argument concludes that getting funding ensures scaling.
To map the concrete conditional relationship to the abstract description contrasting a required condition with one that guarantees occurrence.
4
Analyze the senior analyst scenario.
Identifies the structure: Eligible (state of affairs) -> Master's degree (characteristic). The argument negates the sufficient condition by claiming lack of eligibility guarantees lack of the degree.
To map the concrete conditional relationship to the abstract description detailing a state of affairs requiring a characteristic.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 22Soru →

The following four excerpts contain invalid logical deductions involving necessary and sufficient conditions. Select the precise abstract description of the logical flaw committed in each excerpt.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

To significantly reduce urban congestion and simultaneously maintain economic growth, a municipality must heavily subsidize its public transit network. Metropolis has just authorized unprecedented subsidies for its transit system. Therefore, Metropolis will inevitably achieve a dramatic reduction in congestion alongside maintained growth.
If a cybersecurity infrastructure incorporates autonomous quantum encryption, it will detect anomalous intrusions instantaneously. Instantaneous intrusion detection invariably prevents unauthorized large-scale data exfiltration. However, the agency opted against implementing quantum encryption. Thus, the network will inevitably suffer from large-scale data exfiltration.
A geological formation cannot be formally classified as a stable craton unless it exhibits both minimal seismic activity and long-term tectonic isolation. The newly surveyed bedrock exhibits the required lack of seismic activity and has remained tectonically isolated. Therefore, it is definitively a stable craton.
A deep-sea submersible will successfully withstand extreme abyssal pressures only if its primary hull is constructed from a specialized titanium-carbide alloy. The engineering team has fabricated the new vessel's hull using this exact titanium-carbide alloy. Consequently, the submersible is guaranteed to withstand the extreme abyssal pressures.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Metropolis excerpt maps to treating a policy as sufficient for a compound objective. The cybersecurity excerpt maps to inferring nonoccurrence from an absent initial condition in a causal chain. The geological excerpt maps to taking multiple prerequisites as sufficient for a classification. The submersible excerpt maps to concluding a capability is achieved from a single precondition.
Each correct pairing isolates the precise contextual and structural markers of the necessary/sufficient flaw. The Metropolis excerpt involves a 'compound objective' and a 'policy'. The cybersecurity excerpt involves a 'causal chain' and an illegal negation ('nonoccurrence'). The geological excerpt involves 'multiple prerequisites' for a 'classification'. The submersible excerpt involves a 'single necessary precondition' for a 'capability'.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the formal conditional structure of the Metropolis transit argument.
Structure: (Reduce Congestion AND Maintain Growth) -> Subsidize Transit. The premise applies the subsidy, concluding the compound goals are met (Illegal Reversal).
Identifying the compound nature of the necessary condition distinguishes it from simpler reversals.
2
Analyze the formal conditional structure of the cybersecurity argument.
Structure: Quantum -> Detect -> Prevent. The premise denies Quantum, concluding ~Prevent (Illegal Negation).
This is the only argument that relies on a multi-step causal chain and an illegal negation rather than a reversal.
3
Analyze the formal conditional structure of the geological craton argument.
Structure: Craton Classification -> (~Seismic AND Isolated). Premise affirms the requirements, concluding it is a Craton (Illegal Reversal).
Identifying the 'classification' and 'multiple prerequisites' terminology maps this flawlessly to its abstract description.
4
Analyze the formal conditional structure of the deep-sea submersible argument.
Structure: Withstand Pressure -> Titanium Alloy. Premise affirms the alloy, concluding it will withstand pressure (Illegal Reversal).
This establishes a single precondition for a capability, distinct from the compound objective and classification structures.
5
Map each parsed argument to its corresponding abstract logical description.
Urban = compound objective policy; Cyber = causal chain negation; Geo = multiple prerequisites classification; Submersible = single capability precondition.
Correct mapping at the highest difficulty requires matching the specific structural syntax of the flaw, not just recognizing that a flaw occurred.

Anahtar Kavram

While many arguments commit the fallacy of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, the structural manifestation of this flaw varies. Advanced logical reasoning requires distinguishing between illegal reversals and illegal negations, as well as tracking whether the flaw applies to single attributes, compound objectives, categorizations, or causal chains.
Soru 23Soru →

Financial Analyst: A technology startup can achieve long-term profitability only if it develops a diversified product portfolio. Vertex Innovations has recently expanded its offerings to include hardware, software, and consulting services, thereby successfully developing a diversified product portfolio. Thus, Vertex Innovations is guaranteed to achieve long-term profitability.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the financial analyst's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It treats a condition that is required for a startup to achieve long-term profitability as if it were enough to ensure that profitability.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument treats a condition that is required for profitability as if it were enough to ensure profitability.
The argument states that profitability requires a diversified portfolio (Profitability -> Diversified Portfolio). It then establishes that Vertex has a diversified portfolio, and concludes that Vertex will definitely be profitable. This is a classic illegal reversal: the author assumes that because the necessary condition was met, the sufficient condition must inevitably follow.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core premises and main conclusion.
Premise: Profitability requires a diversified portfolio. Premise: Vertex has a diversified portfolio. Conclusion: Vertex is guaranteed to achieve profitability.
Deconstructing the argument is the necessary first step to analyzing its logical structure.
2
Analyze the conditional logic established in the first premise.
The phrase 'only if' indicates that a diversified product portfolio is a necessary requirement for long-term profitability, not a guarantee (sufficient condition).
Correctly translating conditional indicators like 'only if' is crucial for evaluating logical validity.
3
Compare the evidence provided to the conclusion drawn.
The analyst concludes that Vertex will definitely be profitable just because it satisfied a single necessary requirement.
This step reveals the logical gap between the evidence (meeting a requirement) and the claim made (guaranteed success).
4
Identify the abstract logical flaw.
The argument commits an illegal reversal by treating a necessary condition as if it were a sufficient condition.
Matching the specific error in the stimulus to a general logical flaw type allows you to select the correct answer choice.

Anahtar Kavram

Illegal Reversal (Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions)
Soru 24Soru →

Macroeconomist: Averting a severe hyperinflationary spiral requires the central bank to immediately halt the injection of unbacked liquidity into the market. However, the central bank will halt this injection only if the executive administration permanently relinquishes its statutory control over monetary policy. Therefore, we can be confident that if the executive administration permanently relinquishes its statutory control, the nation will successfully avert a severe hyperinflationary spiral.

Which of the following most accurately describes the logical flaw in the macroeconomist's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It treats a condition that must be met in order to achieve a desired outcome as a condition that is sufficient to ensure that outcome.

Cevap

The argument assumes that a condition required to achieve a goal is sufficient to guarantee it.
The argument correctly establishes that relinquishing control is a necessary condition for averting hyperinflation (Avert -> Halt -> Relinquish). However, the conclusion claims that relinquishing control will guarantee that hyperinflation is averted (Relinquish -> Avert). This is a classic illegal reversal, mistakenly treating a required condition as a sufficient one.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
If the executive administration relinquishes control, the nation will successfully avert hyperinflation.
Understanding the final claim is essential before evaluating the logic used to reach it.
2
Diagram the conditional statements provided in the premises.
Premise 1: Avert Hyperinflation -> Halt Injection. Premise 2: Halt Injection -> Relinquish Control.
Keywords like 'requires' and 'only if' introduce necessary conditions, which go on the right side of the conditional arrow.
3
Chain the conditional premises together.
Avert Hyperinflation -> Relinquish Control.
Since 'Halt Injection' is shared, the conditions can be linked to show that relinquishing control is ultimately necessary to avert hyperinflation.
4
Compare the logical premise chain to the conclusion.
The premises prove (Avert -> Relinquish), but the conclusion claims (Relinquish -> Avert).
This comparison reveals that the argument reverses the direction of the conditional relationship.
5
Match the observed error to the abstract descriptions in the options.
The argument treats a required (necessary) condition as a condition that ensures the outcome (sufficient).
This is the classic definition of an illegal reversal flaw.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Illegal Reversals (Confusing Necessary for Sufficient)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 25Soru →

Financial Analyst: A corporation can successfully weather a severe economic recession only if it maintains a substantial cash reserve prior to the downturn. Vancorp Industries has aggressively retained earnings over the past five years, resulting in a massive and unprecedented cash reserve. Therefore, we can be confident that Vancorp Industries will successfully weather the impending severe economic recession.

Which of the following best describes the logical flaw committed in the financial analyst's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It fails to recognize that fulfilling a precondition for a specific outcome is not, by itself, adequate to guarantee that the outcome will be realized.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument fails to recognize that fulfilling a precondition for a specific outcome is not, by itself, adequate to guarantee that the outcome will be realized.
The financial analyst's premise clearly establishes that a substantial cash reserve is a necessary condition ('only if') for weathering a recession. However, the conclusion mistakenly assumes that because Vancorp has met this necessary condition, its survival is guaranteed. This structurally treats a necessary requirement as if it were a sufficient guarantee, which is perfectly described by the correct option.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional statement in the premise.
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition. The premise translates to: If a corporation weathers a recession (Sufficient) -> It maintains a substantial cash reserve (Necessary).
Identifying the structural relationship between conditions is the foundational step for evaluating conditional logic arguments.
2
Analyze the application of the premise and the conclusion.
The argument states Vancorp has satisfied the necessary condition (has a massive cash reserve) and concludes that the sufficient condition will occur (will weather the recession).
This determines how the author attempts to use the established rules to prove their point.
3
Identify the logical mismatch between the premise and conclusion.
The author commits an Illegal Reversal. They confuse a necessary requirement (a precondition) with a sufficient guarantee.
Recognizing the gap between what is proven (Vancorp meets a requirement) and what is claimed (Vancorp is guaranteed to succeed) reveals the exact flaw.
4
Match the identified flaw with the abstract descriptions in the options.
The correct option abstractly describes treating a necessary condition ('precondition') as a sufficient condition ('adequate to guarantee').
LSAT flaw questions frequently use abstract logical terminology to describe structural errors.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Illegal Reversal (Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions)
Soru 26Soru →

Ecologist: A widespread proliferation of the rare Xerophyllum lily never occurs in these mountainous regions unless there has been a recent, intense wildfire to clear competing vegetation and crack the plant's tough seed coats. Satellite imagery confirms that an exceptionally intense wildfire swept through the western slopes of Mount Cascade earlier this summer. Therefore, we can be certain that a widespread proliferation of the Xerophyllum lily will occur on the western slopes in the coming growing season.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the ecologist's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It treats a condition without which a specific biological phenomenon cannot occur as a condition sufficient to guarantee the occurrence of that phenomenon.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument treats a condition without which a phenomenon cannot occur as a condition sufficient to guarantee the occurrence of that phenomenon.
The correct answer precisely describes the logical fallacy of confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition. The first premise establishes that a wildfire is a necessary prerequisite for the lily's proliferation ('never occurs... unless'). The author then incorrectly assumes that because this necessary condition has been met, the proliferation is completely guaranteed to happen, ignoring the possibility that other conditions must also be satisfied.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conditional relationship established in the first sentence.
The word 'unless' introduces a necessary condition. The statement translates to: If there is a widespread proliferation of the lily, then there has been a recent, intense wildfire.
Mapping the formal logic of the premises is essential for evaluating conditional arguments.
2
Analyze the second premise and the conclusion.
The ecologist notes that an intense wildfire did occur (the necessary condition was met) and concludes that the lily will definitely proliferate as a result.
This step reveals the structure of the deduction the author is attempting to make.
3
Evaluate the logical validity of the ecologist's deduction.
The argument commits an illegal reversal. It assumes that meeting a necessary requirement is enough to guarantee the outcome.
A necessary condition is required for an event, but it does not guarantee it. Other factors (like rainfall or soil nutrients) might also be necessary.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Soru 27Soru →

The logical flaw of confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient condition, or mistaking a sufficient condition for a necessary one, is a common vulnerability in formal arguments. Which of the following argument excerpts commit this specific conditional reasoning flaw? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A sudden disruption in the global supply of rare earth metals will inevitably precipitate a severe production crisis within the semiconductor manufacturing sector. Industry analysts have reported that the semiconductor sector is currently experiencing an unprecedented production crisis. It is therefore evident that a disruption in the global supply of rare earth metals has occurred.; Implementing stringent emissions regulations on all domestic factories is sufficient to significantly reduce the urban concentration of harmful atmospheric pollutants. However, the municipal government has ultimately decided against implementing these regulations. Therefore, the urban concentration of atmospheric pollutants will not be significantly reduced.; A judicial nominee will not be confirmed by the legislative committee unless they have maintained a pristine ethical record throughout their entire legal career. The recently nominated appellate judge has irrefutably maintained a pristine ethical record for over three decades. We can therefore be absolutely certain that this judge will be confirmed by the committee.

Cevap

The argument concerning the semiconductor manufacturing sector (Illegal Reversal), the argument regarding atmospheric pollutants (Illegal Negation), and the argument about the judicial nominee (Illegal Reversal involving 'unless') commit necessary vs. sufficient condition flaws.
Three of the arguments commit conditional reasoning flaws. The argument concerning the semiconductor sector commits an Illegal Reversal by assuming that because the necessary condition (a production crisis) occurred, the sufficient condition (a supply disruption) must have caused it. The argument regarding emissions regulations commits an Illegal Negation by assuming that because a sufficient condition (regulations) was not met, the result (reduced pollutants) cannot occur, ignoring alternative ways pollution might be reduced. Finally, the argument about the judicial nominee commits an Illegal Reversal by mistakenly treating a necessary condition introduced by the word 'unless' (a pristine record) as a sufficient condition guaranteeing confirmation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the question stem.
The prompt asks to identify excerpts containing conditional reasoning flaws, specifically Illegal Reversal (treating a necessary condition as sufficient) and Illegal Negation (treating a sufficient condition as necessary).
Defining the precise logical structures of the targeted flaws is required to accurately evaluate each option.
2
Evaluate the semiconductor sector argument.
Formal logic: Disruption →\rightarrow Crisis. The premise states Crisis occurs, and concludes Disruption must have occurred. This treats the necessary condition as sufficient.
This is a classic Illegal Reversal, meaning the argument exhibits the target flaw.
3
Evaluate the vaccine approval argument.
Formal logic: Approval →\rightarrow Efficacy AND No Side Effects. The premise states there ARE side effects (a necessary condition is failed), and concludes no approval. This is logically valid.
Because the argument correctly applies the contrapositive and contains no flaw, it must be eliminated.
4
Evaluate the emissions regulations argument.
Formal logic: Regulations →\rightarrow Reduced Pollutants. The premise states NO Regulations, and concludes NO Reduced Pollutants. This treats the sufficient condition as necessary.
This is a classic Illegal Negation, meaning the argument exhibits the target flaw.
5
Evaluate the public libraries argument.
The argument observes a correlation between library funding and literacy rates, then concludes that the funding actively causes the increased literacy.
While flawed, it commits a Correlation vs. Causation error, not a conditional reasoning flaw, so it must be eliminated.
6
Evaluate the judicial nominee argument.
Formal logic: 'A unless B' translates to ∼B→A\sim B \rightarrow A, or contrapositively ∼A→B\sim A \rightarrow B. Thus, Confirmed →\rightarrow Pristine Record. The premise states the nominee has a Pristine Record, and concludes they will be Confirmed.
The argument treats the necessary condition (Pristine Record) as a sufficient condition for confirmation, which is an Illegal Reversal.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws (Illegal Reversal and Illegal Negation)
Soru 28Soru →

Evolutionary Biologist: For any species to survive a period of rapid environmental upheaval, it must possess a high degree of genetic variation. The newly discovered population of cave-dwelling salamanders exhibits a remarkably high degree of genetic variation across its genome. Therefore, this population of salamanders will undoubtedly survive the current period of rapid environmental upheaval.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the evolutionary biologist's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: treats a condition that is required for a certain outcome as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it treats a condition that is required for a certain outcome as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
The argument correctly states that genetic variation is necessary for survival ('must possess'). It then observes that the salamanders have this genetic variation and concludes they will 'undoubtedly survive'. This is a classic illegal reversal: it treats a necessary condition (having genetic variation) as if it were a sufficient condition that guarantees the outcome.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: Survival requires genetic variation (Survival -> Genetic Variation). Premise 2: Salamanders have genetic variation. Conclusion: Salamanders will survive.
Deconstructing the argument's conditional logic is essential for spotting formal reasoning flaws.
2
Analyze the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument establishes that genetic variation is a requirement (a necessary condition) for survival. However, the conclusion assumes that simply meeting this requirement guarantees survival.
Comparing the argument's structure to valid conditional reasoning reveals the specific logical error known as an illegal reversal.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that accurately describes this illegal reversal.
The correct option explicitly identifies that the argument treats a requirement (necessary condition) as a guarantee (sufficient condition).
Flaw questions require selecting the abstract description that precisely matches the logical error made in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions (Illegal Reversal)
Soru 29Soru →

In logical reasoning, arguments often fail by misinterpreting conditional relationships, specifically by treating a condition that is necessary for an outcome as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome (or vice versa). Which of the following arguments commit this logical flaw? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Anyone who is a professionally certified diver has completed over 50 hours of open-water training. Mark has completed 60 hours of open-water training. Therefore, Mark must be a professionally certified diver.; A thriving botanical garden requires nutrient-rich soil. The city's new community garden is not thriving, which means its soil must not be nutrient-rich.

Cevap

The correct choices are the argument regarding the certified diver and the argument regarding the botanical garden.
The correct choices both fail to distinguish between sufficient and necessary conditions. The argument about the certified diver commits an Illegal Reversal by assuming that meeting the necessary training hours guarantees certification. The argument about the botanical garden commits an Illegal Negation by assuming that because a sufficient condition (thriving) is absent, the necessary condition (nutrient-rich soil) must also be absent. In logic, an Illegal Negation fundamentally relies on the same misunderstanding of conditionality as an Illegal Reversal.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each argument to extract its structural logic and identify its core premise and conclusion.
Arguments are mapped into conditional, causal, or part-to-whole frameworks.
Identifying the structure is required to evaluate the validity of the reasoning.
2
Identify arguments that mistakenly invert the relationship between sufficient and necessary conditions.
The diver argument demonstrates an Illegal Reversal, and the botanical garden argument demonstrates an Illegal Negation.
Both of these flaws fundamentally mistake a necessary condition for a sufficient one (or vice versa), matching the prompt's criteria.
3
Eliminate arguments that exhibit other flaws or are logically valid.
The green tea argument is a causal flaw, the suspension bridge argument is a composition flaw, and the literary award argument is a valid contrapositive.
Only options containing conditional logic flaws fit the precise requirement of the question stem.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing between conditions that guarantee an outcome (sufficient) and conditions that are merely required for an outcome (necessary).
Soru 30Soru →

Match each argument excerpt to the accurate description of its logical structure or flaw.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Horticulturist: A specific plant species will thrive in this greenhouse only if the humidity is maintained above sixty percent. The greenhouse humidity is currently maintained above sixty percent. Therefore, we can be certain that this plant species will thrive.
Education Administrator: Any student who successfully completes the immersive language program achieves fluency. Liam did not successfully complete the immersive language program. Thus, it is inevitable that Liam will not achieve fluency.
Political Analyst: The transportation committee will approve the new transit budget only if the mayor publicly supports it. However, the mayor has made it clear she does not publicly support the budget. Consequently, the transportation committee will definitely not approve it.
Financial Reporter: Unless the national trade deficit decreases significantly, the currency's value will remain volatile. Recent economic reports confirm the national trade deficit has not decreased significantly. Therefore, the currency's value will remain volatile.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches map the Horticulturist to treating a necessary condition as sufficient (Illegal Reversal), the Education Administrator to inferring an outcome will not occur because a sufficient condition is absent (Illegal Negation), the Political Analyst to properly deducing the absence of an outcome from the absence of a required condition (Valid Contrapositive), and the Financial Reporter to correctly concluding a result from the presence of a sufficient condition (Valid Modus Ponens).
Each argument excerpt demonstrates a specific application of conditional logic. The Horticulturist commits an Illegal Reversal by treating a necessary condition ('humidity above sixty percent') as sufficient. The Education Administrator commits an Illegal Negation by assuming the absence of one sufficient condition ('completes the program') guarantees the outcome will not occur. The Political Analyst forms a valid contrapositive, properly concluding the absence of the outcome from the failure of the necessary condition ('mayor publicly supports it'). The Financial Reporter makes a valid deduction (Modus Ponens) from an 'unless' statement, properly inferring the outcome from the presence of the sufficient condition ('deficit has not decreased').

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Horticulturist's argument.
Structure: Thrive -> Humidity > 60%. Premise: Humidity > 60%. Conclusion: Thrive.
To identify the logical flaw of treating a condition necessary for an outcome as sufficient to guarantee it (Illegal Reversal).
2
Analyze the Education Administrator's argument.
Structure: Completes Program -> Fluency. Premise: Did not complete. Conclusion: No fluency.
To identify the logical flaw of inferring an outcome won't occur merely because one sufficient condition is absent (Illegal Negation).
3
Analyze the Political Analyst's argument.
Structure: Approve -> Mayor Supports. Premise: Mayor does not support. Conclusion: Will not approve.
To recognize a valid Modus Tollens deduction, where establishing the absence of a required condition proves the absence of the outcome.
4
Analyze the Financial Reporter's argument.
Structure: If deficit does NOT decrease -> Volatile. Premise: Deficit did NOT decrease. Conclusion: Volatile.
To recognize a valid Modus Ponens deduction, where establishing the presence of a sufficient condition guarantees the outcome.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws and Valid Conditional Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 31Soru →

Below are five distinct logical arguments. Identify which of these arguments contains a reasoning error where a condition required to produce a given result is mistakenly treated as guaranteeing that result, or where a condition that guarantees a result is mistakenly treated as a requirement for it. Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any network that is adequately protected against the new ransomware variant must have implemented the updated firewall protocols. NexusCorp has implemented the updated firewall protocols across all its servers, so its network is undoubtedly protected against the new ransomware variant.; If an ancient settlement was a major regional trade hub, archaeological digs there will uncover coinage from distant empires. The recently excavated settlement at Oakhaven was clearly not a major regional trade hub. Therefore, excavations there will not uncover any coinage from distant empires.

Cevap

The arguments concerning the cybersecurity network (NexusCorp) and the archaeological excavation (Oakhaven) both commit necessary/sufficient condition flaws.
The correct selections perfectly demonstrate the two primary forms of conditional logic confusion. The argument regarding the cybersecurity network commits an illegal reversal by assuming that meeting a minimum requirement (the firewall) guarantees the overall outcome (total protection). The argument regarding the archaeological excavation commits an illegal negation by assuming that failing to meet one sufficient trigger (being a trade hub) entirely eliminates the possibility of the outcome (finding distant coinage).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the prompt to understand the specific flaw being requested.
The prompt asks for arguments that either treat a required condition as guaranteeing a result (illegal reversal) or treat a guaranteeing condition as a requirement (illegal negation).
Accurately identifying the target flaw is essential before evaluating the answer choices.
2
Evaluate the cybersecurity network argument.
The premise states: Protected -> Updated Firewall. The conclusion states: Updated Firewall -> Protected. This incorrectly treats the necessary condition as sufficient.
This matches the definition of an illegal reversal, making it a correct selection.
3
Evaluate the archaeological excavation argument.
The premise states: Trade Hub -> Distant Coinage. The conclusion states: Not a Trade Hub -> No Distant Coinage. This incorrectly treats the sufficient condition as necessary.
This matches the definition of an illegal negation, making it a correct selection.
4
Evaluate the remaining arguments to rule out other flaw types.
The nutrition argument commits a correlation/causation flaw. The startup argument commits a quantifier overreach flaw. The corporate budget argument commits a composition flaw.
None of these involve confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, confirming they should not be selected.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Soru 32Soru →

Art Authenticator: To be considered a genuine landscape by the 17th-century master Valerius, a painting must feature his signature technique of layering translucent glazes over a monochrome underpainting. A newly discovered painting of a coastal scene has been thoroughly analyzed by conservators, who found that it was created using exactly this layering technique. Therefore, the coastal scene is undoubtedly a genuine work by Valerius.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the art authenticator's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It treats a condition that is necessary for a painting to be a genuine Valerius as a condition that is sufficient to guarantee its authenticity.

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it treats a necessary condition (the specific layering technique) as a sufficient condition for authenticity.
The author states that a genuine Valerius landscape 'must feature' the layering technique. The phrase 'must feature' establishes the technique as a strictly necessary condition. The author then argues that because the new painting features this technique, it must be genuine. This incorrectly treats the technique as a sufficient condition that guarantees authenticity, ignoring the possibility that other 17th-century artists might have used the same glazes and underpainting.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional statements in the premises.
Premise 1: Genuine Valerius → Layering technique. Premise 2: New painting → Layering technique.
Identifying the formal logic structure is required to analyze conditional arguments accurately.
2
Analyze the conclusion in relation to the premises.
Conclusion: New painting → Genuine Valerius. The author affirms the necessary condition and concludes that the sufficient condition must be true.
Comparing the conclusion to the premises reveals the logical gap or flaw.
3
Match the identified flaw with the correct abstract description in the options.
The correct option states that the argument treats a necessary condition as a sufficient one, which perfectly describes an illegal reversal.
LSAT flaw questions often use abstract logical terminology to describe structural errors.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Illegal Reversals (Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions)
Soru 33Soru →

The following argument excerpts rely on various patterns of reasoning. Which of the following arguments exhibit a logical flaw wherein a necessary condition is confused with a sufficient condition? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A symphony is selected for the orchestra's gala season only if it features a prominent brass section. The recently composed 'Autumn Suite' was not selected for the gala season. It follows that the suite must not feature a prominent brass section.; Any candidate who secures an executive board position must have at least ten years of industry experience. Mr. Henderson has over fifteen years of industry experience. Therefore, Mr. Henderson will certainly secure an executive board position.

Cevap

The arguments regarding the symphony selection and the executive board candidate both commit necessary versus sufficient condition flaws.
The correct arguments incorrectly treat conditional requirements as mutual guarantees. The symphony argument commits an illegal negation by assuming that because the sufficient condition (selection) was not met, the necessary condition (brass section) must also be absent. The executive board argument commits an illegal reversal by assuming that meeting a necessary requirement (ten years experience) is enough to guarantee the outcome (board position).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the prompt's task to identify the specific logical flaw being tested.
The question asks to identify arguments confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition. This includes illegal reversals and illegal negations.
Understanding the exact flaw to look for prevents selecting arguments with different structural errors or perfectly valid reasoning.
2
Diagram and evaluate the argument about the symphony selection.
Premise: Selected -> Brass Section. Conclusion: ~Selected -> ~Brass Section. This is an illegal negation.
The argument incorrectly assumes that failing to meet the sufficient condition guarantees failing the necessary condition.
3
Diagram and evaluate the argument about the executive board candidate.
Premise: Board Position -> 10+ Years Experience. Conclusion: 10+ Years Experience -> Board Position. This is an illegal reversal.
The argument incorrectly assumes that fulfilling the necessary condition guarantees the sufficient condition.
4
Evaluate the remaining arguments to verify they do not commit this specific flaw.
The medication argument is valid (~Phase III -> ~Approved). The vegetable argument assumes causation from correlation. The transit policy argument shifts the meaning of a key term (equivocation).
Process of elimination confirms that only the symphony and executive board arguments commit the targeted conditional flaw.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws (Illegal Reversals and Negations)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 34Soru →

Corporate Strategist: A successful product launch in today’s highly saturated technology sector always requires an aggressive, well-funded marketing campaign. VertexCorp has just initiated an unprecedentedly aggressive, multi-million-dollar marketing campaign for its upcoming enterprise software suite. Therefore, despite the fierce competition in the industry, we can be highly confident that VertexCorp's new software suite will experience a remarkably successful product launch.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the corporate strategist's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It treats a condition that is necessary for a successful product launch as though it were a condition that ensures a successful product launch.

Cevap

The correct answer accurately describes the argument treating a necessary condition as though it were a sufficient condition.
The argument explicitly states that a successful launch 'requires' an aggressive marketing campaign, establishing marketing as a necessary condition. It then observes that VertexCorp has satisfied this requirement and flawedly concludes that success is therefore highly confident (treating marketing as a sufficient condition or guarantee). The correct option accurately diagnoses this illegal reversal.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conditional premise in the stimulus.
The premise is: A successful product launch requires an aggressive marketing campaign (Successful Launch → Aggressive Marketing).
Mapping the conditional logic establishes the baseline rules the argument must follow.
2
Identify the secondary premise and the conclusion.
Secondary premise: VertexCorp has an aggressive marketing campaign. Conclusion: VertexCorp will have a successful launch.
This shows how the author attempts to apply the conditional rule to a specific scenario.
3
Evaluate the logical transition from premises to conclusion.
The author affirms the necessary condition (Aggressive Marketing) and uses it to erroneously guarantee the sufficient condition (Successful Launch).
This is a classic 'Illegal Reversal' flaw.
4
Match the identified flaw with the abstract descriptions in the answer choices.
The correct answer perfectly translates the Illegal Reversal into abstract terms: treating a condition that is necessary as though it were one that ensures (is sufficient for) an outcome.
The correct option must precisely describe the structural error without introducing irrelevant critiques.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Illegal Reversal (Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 35Soru →

Below are five distinct argument excerpts. Which of the following arguments exhibit reasoning that is flawed specifically because it confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient one, or mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary one? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any viable alternative to fossil fuels must be both economically scalable and environmentally benign. Because the proposed geothermal expansion project is highly economically scalable and completely benign to the local environment, it is guaranteed to be a viable alternative to fossil fuels.; If a regulatory framework imposes stringent reporting requirements on small businesses, economic innovation in that sector is inevitably stifled. The newly proposed municipal framework explicitly exempts small businesses from any stringent reporting requirements. Therefore, implementing this proposed framework will not stifle economic innovation.

Cevap

The arguments regarding the geothermal expansion project and the proposed municipal regulatory framework both commit conditional logic flaws.
The correct selections both demonstrate classic conditional reasoning flaws. The geothermal expansion argument commits an illegal reversal by assuming that meeting all the necessary requirements for a viable energy alternative is enough to guarantee viability. The regulatory framework argument commits an illegal negation by assuming that avoiding one specific sufficient cause of stifled innovation guarantees that innovation will not be stifled, ignoring other potential causes.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the question stem to determine the exact type of logical flaw being requested.
The stem explicitly asks for arguments that confuse necessary and sufficient conditions, which includes illegal reversals and illegal negations.
Identifying the target flaw is essential before evaluating the options.
2
Evaluate the geothermal expansion argument for conditional logic flaws.
The argument translates to: 'Viable -> Scalable AND Benign'. It then states 'Scalable AND Benign' and concludes 'Viable'. This is an illegal reversal.
This matches the target flaw by treating necessary conditions as sufficient.
3
Evaluate the legislation argument for conditional logic flaws.
The argument translates to: 'Pass -> Unanimous Support'. It then states 'Passed' and concludes 'Unanimous Support'. This is valid reasoning (Modus Ponens).
A valid argument cannot be the correct answer when asked to identify a flaw.
4
Evaluate the regulatory framework argument for conditional logic flaws.
The argument translates to: 'Stringent Requirements -> Innovation Stifled'. It then states 'NOT Stringent Requirements' and concludes 'NOT Innovation Stifled'. This is an illegal negation.
This matches the target flaw by treating a sufficient condition as a necessary one.
5
Evaluate the remaining arguments to ensure they do not contain the target flaw.
The stress/sleep argument mistakes correlation for causation. The budget argument confuses percentages with absolute numbers. Neither involves a necessary vs. sufficient conditional flaw.
We must verify that no other options fit the criteria to confirm our final selections.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws (Illegal Reversal and Illegal Negation)
Soru 36Soru →

Analyze the flawed conditional reasoning in the arguments on the left and pair each with the precise diagnostic description of its logical error on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Acquiring a commercial broadcasting license requires compliance with federal bandwidth regulations, and one can comply with these regulations only by utilizing adaptive signal encryption. Thus, any broadcaster who utilizes adaptive signal encryption will successfully acquire a commercial broadcasting license.
Whenever a municipal government issues municipal bonds, public infrastructure spending increases. Moreover, increased public infrastructure spending invariably leads to temporary localized inflation. Therefore, if a municipal government refrains from issuing municipal bonds, temporary localized inflation will not occur.
Unless a theoretical physicist publishes in peer-reviewed journals, their hypotheses will not gain traction in the academic community. Dr. Kael has published numerous papers in elite peer-reviewed journals this year, guaranteeing that her new hypotheses will gain widespread academic traction.
Any novel algorithm that optimally compresses genomic data will fundamentally transform bioinformatics. The 'K-Fold' algorithm, despite its computational complexity, does not optimally compress genomic data. Consequently, the 'K-Fold' algorithm will fail to fundamentally transform bioinformatics.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The arguments map to the flaws as follows: The broadcasting license argument maps to presuming a necessary condition for a prerequisite is sufficient. The municipal bonds argument maps to inferring nonoccurrence from the absence of a chain-initiating condition. The physicist argument maps to treating a condition without which an outcome cannot be achieved as definitively securing it. The algorithm argument maps to concluding a result cannot occur because a sufficient condition is lacking.
Each argument commits a specific variation of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The broadcasting argument performs a reversal on a chain of conditions. The bonds argument performs a negation on a chain. The physicist argument performs a simple reversal based on an 'unless' statement. The algorithm argument performs a simple negation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the broadcasting license argument.
Translates to: License→ComplianceLicense \rightarrow Compliance, and Compliance→EncryptionCompliance \rightarrow Encryption. Conclusion: Encryption→LicenseEncryption \rightarrow License. This maps to the description involving a necessary condition for a prerequisite being treated as sufficient.
Identifying the formal logic structure (Chain Reversal) isolates its specific abstract description.
2
Analyze the municipal bonds argument.
Translates to: Bonds→Spending→InflationBonds \rightarrow Spending \rightarrow Inflation. Conclusion: ∼Bonds→∼Inflation\sim Bonds \rightarrow \sim Inflation. This maps to the description involving inferring the nonoccurrence of an ultimate consequence from the absence of an initiating condition.
Identifying the formal logic structure (Chain Negation) isolates its specific abstract description.
3
Analyze the theoretical physicist argument.
Translates to: ∼Publish→∼Traction\sim Publish \rightarrow \sim Traction, which contraposes to Traction→PublishTraction \rightarrow Publish. Conclusion: Publish→TractionPublish \rightarrow Traction. This maps to the description of treating a condition without which an outcome cannot be achieved (necessary) as one that definitively secures it (sufficient).
Properly diagramming 'unless' statements is required to spot the standard Illegal Reversal.
4
Analyze the genomic algorithm argument.
Translates to: Compress→TransformCompress \rightarrow Transform. Conclusion: ∼Compress→∼Transform\sim Compress \rightarrow \sim Transform. This maps to the description of concluding a result cannot be brought about because a sufficient condition is lacking.
Identifying the standard Illegal Negation isolates its matching diagnostic description.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 37Soru →

Match each argument excerpt on the left with the abstract description of its logical flaw on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

City Planner: The downtown revitalization project will be approved only if the federal grant is secured. We just received notice that the federal grant has been secured in full. Therefore, the downtown revitalization project is guaranteed to be approved.
Meteorologist: An atmospheric pressure drop of more than ten millibars is enough to cause a severe thunderstorm. Since the atmospheric pressure in our region has remained completely stable this week, we will definitely not experience a severe thunderstorm.
Manager: Whenever our software development team is given a flexible deadline, they successfully deliver a bug-free application. Therefore, the only way to ensure the team delivers a bug-free application is to provide them with a flexible deadline.
Safety Inspector: Unless the chemical storage tanks are inspected monthly, the facility will face a hazardous leak. The facility's management has rigorously ensured that the tanks are inspected every single month. Hence, the facility will absolutely not face a hazardous leak.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The City Planner matches the prerequisite flaw; the Meteorologist matches the absent sufficient cause flaw; the Manager matches the adequate condition flaw; and the Safety Inspector matches the precautionary measure flaw.
Each correct pair accurately identifies the specific directional error in conditional reasoning. The City Planner and Safety Inspector both treat necessary conditions as sufficient, but in distinct contexts (achieving a goal vs. preventing a disaster). The Manager and Meteorologist both treat sufficient conditions as necessary, but in distinct ways (claiming an adequate condition is the only way vs. inferring an event won't happen from the lack of a sufficient cause).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the City Planner's argument for conditional indicators.
The argument states 'only if' (identifying a necessary condition) and concludes a guarantee (treating it as a sufficient condition).
Identifying the directional error is required to match the argument to its abstract description.
2
Analyze the Meteorologist's argument for conditional indicators.
The argument states 'is enough' (identifying a sufficient condition) and concludes that its absence means the outcome will absolutely not occur.
This isolates the flaw of illicitly inferring the absence of a phenomenon from the lack of one sufficient cause.
3
Analyze the Manager's argument for conditional indicators.
The argument uses 'whenever' (identifying a sufficient condition) but concludes it is the 'only way' (treating it as a necessary condition).
This isolates the error of treating a condition proven to be adequate as a strict requirement.
4
Analyze the Safety Inspector's argument for conditional indicators.
The argument states 'unless' (identifying a necessary precaution) and concludes that meeting this precaution guarantees safety (treating it as a sufficient condition).
This isolates the specific flaw of treating a required precaution as a guaranteed prevention of an adverse event.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Soru 38Soru →

Economist: A developing nation can achieve sustained economic self-reliance only if it first establishes a robust domestic manufacturing sector. Moreover, implementing protectionist trade policies is a strict prerequisite for any nation attempting to establish such a sector. Thus, if a developing nation has successfully implemented protectionist trade policies, it is guaranteed to eventually achieve sustained economic self-reliance.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the economist's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: treats a condition whose presence is required for a particular outcome as though its presence ensures that the outcome is achieved

Cevap

The correct answer accurately describes the argument treating a necessary condition as a sufficient condition.
The correct answer perfectly captures the logical structure of the error. The premises establish that protectionist policies are a requirement (necessary condition) for the ultimate goal of self-reliance. The conclusion then flips this relationship, falsely claiming that merely having those policies is enough to guarantee (sufficient condition) the ultimate goal.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the conditional statements presented in the premises.
Premise 1: Sustained Economic Self-Reliance → Robust Domestic Manufacturing Sector. Premise 2: Robust Domestic Manufacturing Sector → Protectionist Trade Policies.
Phrases like 'only if' and 'strict prerequisite' introduce necessary conditions, which follow the arrow.
2
Combine the premises to find the valid logical chain.
Chain: Sustained Economic Self-Reliance → Protectionist Trade Policies.
Because the necessary condition of the first premise is the sufficient condition of the second, they link together logically.
3
Diagram the conclusion drawn by the economist.
Conclusion: Protectionist Trade Policies → Sustained Economic Self-Reliance.
The conclusion uses 'if' to introduce a sufficient condition and 'guaranteed to' to indicate the resulting necessary condition.
4
Compare the valid chain to the drawn conclusion to identify the logical error.
The valid chain is A → C, but the conclusion is C → A. The author has taken a necessary condition (C) and treated it as if it were a sufficient condition.
This structural mismatch is a classic Illegal Reversal flaw.
5
Locate the answer choice that abstracts this specific error.
The correct option states that the argument 'treats a condition whose presence is required... as though its presence ensures that the outcome is achieved'.
This phrasing perfectly describes taking a necessary condition ('required') and treating it as a sufficient condition ('ensures').

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Illegal Reversal within a multi-premise conditional chain by abstracting the logical flaw.
Soru 39Soru →

Paleontologist: A species can survive rapid environmental shifts only if it possesses a high degree of genetic variation. The newly analyzed fossil record of the *Cymbospondylus* indicates that this marine reptile exhibited a remarkably high degree of genetic variation during a period of extreme climate volatility. Therefore, the *Cymbospondylus* must have successfully survived that era of rapid environmental shifts.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the paleontologist's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: treats a condition that is necessary for a certain outcome as if it were sufficient to produce that outcome

Cevap

The correct answer identifies that the argument treats a condition that is necessary for a certain outcome as if it were sufficient to produce that outcome.
The paleontologist establishes that genetic variation is necessary for survival by using the indicator phrase 'only if'. The argument then points out that the *Cymbospondylus* met this necessary requirement (it had high genetic variation) and concludes that it must have survived. This reasoning is flawed because it assumes that meeting a necessary requirement is sufficient to guarantee the result. Having genetic variation is required to survive, but it does not mean survival is guaranteed.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional relationship in the first premise.
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition. So, Surviving (S) requires Genetic Variation (V).
Identifying the formal logic structure is the first step in evaluating any conditional argument.
2
Evaluate the second premise and the conclusion.
The second premise states that the species had Genetic Variation (V). The conclusion claims that the species therefore Survived (S).
Comparing the provided evidence to the drawn conclusion reveals any logical gaps.
3
Identify the logical flaw in moving from the premises to the conclusion.
The argument assumes that fulfilling the necessary condition (V) guarantees the sufficient condition (S). This is a classic conditional flaw.
An argument cannot validly conclude that a sufficient condition occurred just because a necessary condition was met.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
Soru 40Soru →

Marine biologist: A coral reef ecosystem can successfully recover from a severe bleaching event only if local water temperatures stabilize within historical averages for at least three consecutive years. Recent data from the Zephyr Atoll shows that local water temperatures have indeed stabilized within historical averages for the past four years. Therefore, we can be confident that the Zephyr Atoll's coral reef ecosystem will successfully recover from its recent severe bleaching event.

Which of the following best describes the logical flaw in the marine biologist's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: incorrectly infers that a result will definitely occur merely because a prerequisite for that result has been satisfied

Cevap

The argument incorrectly infers that a result will definitely occur merely because a prerequisite for that result has been satisfied.
The argument's first sentence establishes that stable temperatures are necessary for recovery ('recover only if stable'). It then notes that temperatures are stable at Zephyr Atoll, and concludes that Zephyr Atoll will recover. This reasoning is flawed because it treats a necessary condition (stable temperatures) as if it were a sufficient condition (guaranteeing recovery). The correct option accurately describes this illegal reversal by noting the argument infers a result (recovery) will occur just because a prerequisite (stable temperatures) is satisfied.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional statement in the premise.
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition. 'Recover -> Temperatures stabilize'.
Identifying the formal logic structure is required to evaluate the argument's validity.
2
Examine the specific application to the Zephyr Atoll.
The argument states that the necessary condition (temperatures stabilizing) has been met.
This establishes what evidence the author uses to draw their conclusion.
3
Evaluate the conclusion against the premises.
The author concludes that because the necessary condition was met, the sufficient condition (recovery) will definitely happen. This is an illegal reversal.
A necessary condition is required for an event to happen, but its presence does not guarantee the event will happen.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws
ÖncekiSayfa 2 / 3Sonraki
Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 2 | Examkin