Examkin

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws

42 soru

Tüm türler42Çoktan seçmeli22Çoklu seçim10Eşleştirme10
Soru 41Soru →

Identify the precise logical error committed in each argument below. Pair the arguments on the left with their corresponding abstract flaw descriptions on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

If a tech startup secures top-tier venture capital, it can scale its operations rapidly. However, the startup NexTech deliberately opted not to pursue venture capital. Therefore, NexTech will not be able to scale its operations rapidly.
A novelist can be nominated for the Horizon Prize only if their book is translated into at least three languages. Julian's latest historical fiction has been translated into five languages, meaning he is certain to be nominated for the prize.
To obtain a commercial pilot license, candidates must pass a rigorous medical exam and log at least 250 flight hours. Emilia has easily passed the medical exam and has logged over 300 flight hours. Consequently, Emilia will undoubtedly receive her commercial pilot license.
Sudden atmospheric pressure drops consistently trigger massive migration patterns in specific bird species. Unseasonal cold fronts also trigger these migrations. Today, the atmospheric pressure remains perfectly stable, so we will not witness any massive bird migrations.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The startup argument commits a standard illegal negation. The novelist argument commits a standard illegal reversal. The pilot argument illegally treats multiple necessary prerequisites as jointly sufficient. The bird migration argument commits an illegal negation while ignoring an alternative sufficient condition.
Each correctly paired description precisely diagnoses the structural failure in conditional reasoning present in its corresponding argument. The arguments systematically confuse what is required for an outcome with what guarantees that outcome, or they fail to account for alternative sufficient conditions.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the startup argument's conditional logic.
The argument states 'Top-tier VC -> Scale'. It then reasons '~Top-tier VC -> ~Scale'.
This is an illegal negation. It matches the description of treating a sufficient condition as a necessary one.
2
Analyze the novelist argument's conditional logic.
The argument states 'Nominated -> Translated'. It then reasons 'Translated -> Nominated'.
This is an illegal reversal. It matches the description of treating a required (necessary) condition as a guaranteeing (sufficient) outcome.
3
Analyze the pilot argument's conditional logic.
The argument states 'License -> (Medical AND Hours)'. It then reasons '(Medical AND Hours) -> License'.
While similar to a standard reversal, it specifically involves treating multiple stated prerequisites as jointly sufficient.
4
Analyze the bird migration argument's conditional logic.
The argument states '(Pressure Drop -> Migration) AND (Cold Front -> Migration)'. It reasons '~Pressure Drop -> ~Migration'.
This is an illegal negation that explicitly fails to account for the other known sufficient condition. It matches the description of concluding a phenomenon will not occur due to the absence of just one of multiple sufficient conditions.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying variations of conditional logic flaws, specifically Illegal Reversal and Illegal Negation, across different structural contexts.
Soru 42Soru →

Organizational psychologist: A company can build a truly innovative workplace culture only if it actively encourages its employees to take calculated risks without fear of reprisal. TechCorp recently implemented a policy that officially protects employees who take calculated risks from any negative consequences if those risks lead to failure. Therefore, TechCorp is successfully building a truly innovative workplace culture.

Which of the following best describes the logical flaw in the organizational psychologist's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It treats a condition that is necessary for achieving a certain organizational outcome as being sufficient to guarantee that outcome.

Cevap

The option stating that it treats a condition that is necessary for achieving a certain organizational outcome as being sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
The argument states that encouraging calculated risks is a necessary condition for an innovative culture (indicated by the phrase 'only if'). It then establishes that TechCorp meets this necessary condition and concludes that TechCorp must therefore have an innovative culture. This fundamentally confuses a requirement for a guarantee, treating a necessary condition as if it were a sufficient condition.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conditional premise in the argument.
The premise is: Innovative Culture -> Encourages Calculated Risks (A company can build a truly innovative workplace culture ONLY IF it encourages calculated risks).
Understanding the established conditional relationship is required to evaluate the argument's logic.
2
Identify the remaining premise and the conclusion.
Premise 2: TechCorp encourages calculated risks. Conclusion: TechCorp is building an innovative culture.
Comparing the actual conclusion against the logical possibilities of the conditional premise reveals any structural flaws.
3
Evaluate the logical structure for validity.
The argument structure is: A -> B; B is true; Therefore, A is true. This is an invalid logical move known as an illegal reversal.
Recognizing the mismatch between valid conditional inference and the argument's actual inference.
4
Select the option that matches this diagnostic flaw.
The correct option describes mistaking a necessary condition (encouraging risks) for a sufficient condition (guaranteeing an innovative culture).
The question asks for the description of the reasoning flaw.

Anahtar Kavram

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