Parallel Reasoning

98 soru

Soru 81Soru →

Most of the ancient manuscripts discovered in the desert caves were written on parchment. However, none of the documents translated by Dr. Vance were written on parchment. It follows that most of the ancient manuscripts discovered in the desert caves were not translated by Dr. Vance.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most logically similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Most multinational corporations have implemented strict internal privacy protocols. No start-up tech companies have implemented strict internal privacy protocols. Thus, most multinational corporations are not start-up tech companies.

Cevap

The argument about multinational corporations and start-up tech companies perfectly parallels the logical structure of the stimulus.
The correct answer exactly mirrors the formal logic of the stimulus. It sets up a 'Most X are Y' relationship (Most multinational corporations have strict protocols) and a 'No Z are Y' relationship (No start-up tech companies have strict protocols), leading to the valid deduction 'Therefore, most X are not Z' (most multinational corporations are not start-up tech companies).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure of the stimulus.
Premise 1: Most A (manuscripts) are B (on parchment). Premise 2: No C (translated by Vance) are B (on parchment). Conclusion: Most A (manuscripts) are not C (translated by Vance).
Identifying the abstract formula of the argument is required before finding its parallel match.
2
Determine the validity of the original argument.
The argument is logically valid. Since none of C overlaps with B, the majority of A (which overlaps with B) cannot possibly overlap with C.
Parallel reasoning questions require matching both the exact quantifier structure and the argument's validity.
3
Evaluate the answer choices against the abstract formula: Most X are Y. No Z are Y. Therefore, most X are not Z.
Only the argument regarding multinational corporations matches this exact valid structure and quantifier sequence.
Eliminating options with mismatched quantifiers (Some, All) or invalid structural flaws (illegal reversals/negations) isolates the correct choice.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Quantifier Logic
Soru 82Soru →

Stimulus Argument: If a coral reef is to fully recover from a severe bleaching event, it must be situated in a region with stable ocean temperatures. However, no reef can maintain stable ocean temperatures unless it is shielded from the primary equatorial currents. Thus, any coral reef that fully recovers from a severe bleaching event must be shielded from the primary equatorial currents.

Candidate Argument: If a newly published novel is to win the prestigious Sterling Prize, it must have sold over a million copies. Furthermore, a novel can sell over a million copies only if it has been adapted into a major motion picture. Therefore, any novel that has been adapted into a major motion picture will win the prestigious Sterling Prize.

Statement: The pattern of reasoning in the candidate argument is logically parallel to the pattern of reasoning in the stimulus argument.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False. The arguments are not logically parallel because the stimulus argument is valid, while the candidate argument commits a formal logical flaw.
The statement is false because the two arguments possess fundamentally different logical structures regarding their conclusions. The stimulus presents a valid transitive deduction (A → B, B → C, therefore A → C). While the candidate argument shares the premise structure (X → Y, Y → Z), it draws a flawed conclusion (Z → X), representing an illegal reversal.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the stimulus argument into formal conditional logic.
Premise 1: Fully Recover → Stable Temperatures. Premise 2: Stable Temperatures → Shielded ('no B unless C' translates to B → C). Conclusion: Fully Recover → Shielded.
To identify the exact structural template and establish that the stimulus utilizes a valid transitive chain (A → B, B → C, therefore A → C).
2
Translate the candidate argument into formal conditional logic.
Premise 1: Win Prize → Million Copies. Premise 2: Million Copies → Adapted ('Y only if Z' translates to Y → Z). Conclusion: Adapted → Win Prize.
To map the candidate's logical flow and prepare it for structural comparison against the stimulus.
3
Compare the logical structures of the two arguments.
The stimulus correctly deduces A → C from its premises. The candidate incorrectly deduces C → A from its premises, reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions.
An argument containing a logical flaw (illegal reversal) cannot be parallel to an argument that is logically valid.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Conditional Logic: Analyzing and matching the formal symbolic structure and validity of natural language arguments, paying careful attention to the directionality of conditional conclusions.
Soru 83Soru →

Identify the underlying deductive reasoning pattern for each of the following valid arguments by pairing the concrete scenario with its formal structural description.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The recently observed comet will either disintegrate upon approaching the sun or survive its perihelion passage intact. Spectroscopic analysis confirms it will not disintegrate upon approaching the sun. Therefore, the comet will survive its perihelion passage intact.
If the introduced crop variety is truly resilient to the regional soil fungus, it will synthesize a specific defensive glycoprotein in its root structure. However, extensive chemical assays show the variety synthesizes no such glycoprotein. Thus, the introduced variety is not truly resilient to the regional soil fungus.
If the average water temperature in the estuary rises by one degree, the native oyster population will decline. If the native oyster population declines, the local wading bird population will migrate further north. Therefore, if the average water temperature in the estuary rises by one degree, the local wading bird population will migrate further north.
If a patient experiences bilateral damage to the hippocampus, they will exhibit severe anterograde amnesia. The subject in the clinical study has experienced bilateral damage to the hippocampus. Therefore, the subject will exhibit severe anterograde amnesia.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The arguments correctly pair based on their logical frameworks: The comet argument uses elimination (Disjunctive Syllogism). The crop argument denies the necessary condition (Modus Tollens). The estuary argument links two conditional statements (Hypothetical Syllogism). The patient argument affirms the sufficient condition (Modus Ponens).
Each provided argument represents a distinct, fundamentally valid form of deductive logic. Correctly matching them requires translating the concrete scenario into its abstract logical skeleton: Disjunctive Syllogism (A or B; not A; therefore B), Modus Tollens (If A then B; not B; therefore not A), Hypothetical Syllogism (If A then B; if B then C; therefore if A then C), and Modus Ponens (If A then B; A; therefore B).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the comet argument for its logical framework.
Matches the 'two exhaustive possibilities' description.
It relies on an 'either/or' premise and systematically eliminates one choice.
2
Analyze the crop argument for its logical framework.
Matches the 'denial of necessary condition' description.
It proves that lacking the required resultant glycoprotein implies a lack of underlying resilience.
3
Analyze the estuary argument for its logical framework.
Matches the 'integrated conditional statements' description.
It creates a transitive chain linking water temperature all the way to bird migration.
4
Analyze the patient argument for its logical framework.
Matches the 'fulfillment of sufficient condition' description.
It states that a brain injury guarantees amnesia, confirms the injury is present, and concludes the amnesia must occur.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Valid Structure
Soru 84Soru →

Most of the newly hired software engineers at TechCorp have a background in artificial intelligence. Moreover, most of the newly hired software engineers at TechCorp prefer working remotely rather than in the office. Consequently, at least a few people with a background in artificial intelligence prefer working remotely.

Which of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Most of the historical novels published this year are over four hundred pages long, and most of the historical novels published this year feature female protagonists. It follows that some novels that are over four hundred pages long feature female protagonists.

Cevap

The correct answer is the argument concerning historical novels, their page lengths, and female protagonists.
The correct answer precisely mirrors the logical structure of the stimulus. It introduces two premises that share an identical subject group modified by a 'most' quantifier, and it correctly draws a valid conclusion using a 'some' quantifier to indicate the guaranteed overlap. The logical mapping is identical: Most A are B, Most A are C; therefore, some B are C.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the formal logical structure and quantifiers of the stimulus argument.
The stimulus structure is: Most A (newly hired engineers) are B (background in AI). Most A (newly hired engineers) are C (prefer remote work). Conclusion: Some B are C.
Identifying the exact quantifier placement and logical relationships is the required first step for parallel reasoning questions.
2
Determine the validity of the stimulus argument.
The argument is logically valid. Since 'most' implies strictly more than half, two 'most' statements applied to the exact same subject group mathematically guarantee an overlap between the two distinct properties.
Parallel reasoning requires matching both the formal structure and the underlying logical validity.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to identify the exact structural match.
The correct option applies the identical structure: Most A (historical novels) are B (over 400 pages). Most A (historical novels) are C (female protagonists). Conclusion: Some B are C.
The correct answer must strictly preserve the identical quantifier distribution, term positioning, and conclusion strength.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Quantifier Logic ensures that arguments share identical quantifier scope (All, Most, Some, None) and structural term placement to produce the same logical validity.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 85Soru →

Match each logical argument on the left to its logically parallel counterpart on the right. Both the distribution of quantifiers and the logical validity (or specific flaw) must perfectly align.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Most public parks feature playgrounds, and all places with playgrounds require regular maintenance; thus, most public parks require regular maintenance.
Some vintage cars are costly to insure, and most vintage cars need specialist mechanics; thus, most vehicles costly to insure need specialist mechanics.
No high-speed trains operate on traditional tracks, and some freight routes utilize traditional tracks; thus, some freight routes are not high-speed trains.
Most organic farms avoid synthetic pesticides, and most organic farms rely on crop rotation; thus, most farms that avoid synthetic pesticides rely on crop rotation.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches pair arguments sharing identical quantifier sequences and logical validity: the parks argument matches the novels argument (valid Most/All); the vintage cars argument matches the symphonies argument (flawed Some/Most); the trains argument matches the bakeries argument (valid No/Some); and the organic farms argument matches the startups argument (flawed Most/Most).
Each paired set features identical formal logic. The 'parks' and 'novels' arguments validly combine a 'Most' and 'All' premise. The 'vintage cars' and 'symphonies' arguments share an invalid deduction inferring a 'Most' relationship from a 'Some' and 'Most' premise. The 'high-speed trains' and 'local bakeries' arguments correctly deduce a 'Some... not' conclusion from a 'No' and 'Some' premise. The 'organic farms' and 'startup founders' arguments share the flaw of concluding 'Most' from two 'Most' premises.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the formal logic structure of the first argument on the left.
The public parks argument follows: Most A are B. All B are C. Therefore, Most A are C. This is a valid deduction.
Establishing the baseline structure and validity is necessary before finding a parallel match.
2
Identify the parallel valid structure among the right-side options.
The modern novels argument mirrors this perfectly: Most A are B. All B are C. Therefore, Most A are C.
Parallel reasoning requires identical logical mapping, irrespective of subject matter.
3
Map the remaining structures on the left, paying close attention to logical flaws.
Vintage cars: Some A are B. Most A are C. Therefore, Most B are C (Invalid). Trains: No A are B. Some C are B. Therefore, Some C are not A (Valid). Organic farms: Most A are B. Most A are C. Therefore, Most B are C (Invalid).
Identifying the specific mechanism of flawed arguments is critical, as flawed structures must be paired with identically flawed structures.
4
Pair the remaining arguments based on identical structures and validity.
Trains (No/Some valid) matches bakeries. Vintage cars (Some/Most invalid) matches symphonies. Organic farms (Most/Most invalid) matches startups.
Complete the matching process by ensuring all quantifier variables and conclusions map 1-to-1.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Quantifier Logic
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 86Soru →

Most of the residential buildings in the downtown district were constructed before 1950. Furthermore, every building constructed before 1950 features cast-iron plumbing. Therefore, it must be true that most of the residential buildings in the downtown district feature cast-iron plumbing.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is most parallel to that in the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Most of the senators on the committee voted for the amendment. Anyone who voted for the amendment is considered an ally of the governor. Thus, most of the senators on the committee are considered allies of the governor.

Cevap

The argument about the senators on the committee voting for the amendment correctly parallels the stimulus by combining a 'most' premise and an 'all' premise to reach a valid 'most' conclusion.
The correct answer accurately mirrors the logical structure of the stimulus: Most A (senators on the committee) are B (voted for the amendment). All B (anyone who voted for the amendment) are C (ally of the governor). Therefore, Most A are C (allies of the governor).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure of the stimulus argument.
Premise 1: Most A are B. Premise 2: All B are C. Conclusion: Therefore, Most A are C.
To find a parallel argument, you must first accurately map the quantifiers and their relationship in the original text.
2
Evaluate the logical validity of the original argument.
The argument is logically valid. Since most A's fall into the category of B, and every single B falls into the category of C, those A's must logically also fall into C.
A parallel argument must match both the quantifier distribution and the structural validity (valid vs. flawed) of the stimulus.
3
Examine each answer choice for matching quantifier structure and term relationships.
The correct choice must follow the exact 'Most A are B. All B are C. -> Most A are C.' pattern.
Eliminating choices that use 'some' instead of 'most', or that misalign the subjects and conditions, ensures an exact structural match.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Quantifier Logic
Soru 87Soru →

Analyze the deductive reasoning in the following practical scenarios. Pair each scenario with the abstract logical framework that correctly represents its method of deduction.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

If a delivery network optimizes its routing algorithms, its total fuel consumption drops. GlobalFreight's total fuel consumption has not dropped. So, GlobalFreight has not optimized its routing algorithms.
The symphony must either tune to baroque pitch or transpose the brass section's sheet music. The director refused to transpose the brass section's music. Thus, the symphony must tune to baroque pitch.
Any weather modification program using silver iodide increases local rainfall. Increased local rainfall always causes temporary soil salinity spikes. Thus, programs using silver iodide cause temporary soil salinity spikes.
Every competitive dressage horse requires a specialized joint supplement. Serenade is a competitive dressage horse. Consequently, Serenade requires a specialized joint supplement.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The logistics scenario demonstrates Modus Tollens. The symphony scenario demonstrates Disjunctive Syllogism. The weather modification scenario demonstrates Hypothetical Syllogism. The dressage horse scenario demonstrates Universal Instantiation.
Each scenario maps perfectly onto exactly one of the formal logical structures provided. Modus Tollens requires the denial of a necessary condition. Disjunctive Syllogism requires an 'or' premise followed by an elimination. Hypothetical Syllogism requires chaining two 'if-then' statements. Universal Instantiation requires applying a 'group' rule to an 'individual'.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logistics scenario to identify its premise structure.
The argument uses an 'if-then' statement and denies the 'then' portion to conclude the 'if' portion must be false.
This structural mapping confirms the argument relies on Conditional Denial (Modus Tollens).
2
Analyze the symphony scenario's logical connectors.
The argument uses 'either/or' to present two options, eliminates one, and concludes the other must be taken.
This structural mapping confirms the argument relies on Alternative Elimination (Disjunctive Syllogism).
3
Analyze the weather modification scenario's sequence of events.
The argument connects two conditional statements via a shared middle term (increased local rainfall) to form a broader conclusion.
This structural mapping confirms the argument relies on Transitive Conditionals (Hypothetical Syllogism).
4
Analyze the dressage horse scenario's use of categorization.
The argument states a rule for an entire group ('Every...') and applies it to a single member of that group.
This structural mapping confirms the argument relies on Categorical Application (Universal Instantiation).

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying and abstracting the formal deductive reasoning pattern underlying everyday arguments.
Soru 88Soru →

Some organisms dwelling in the abyssal zone are bioluminescent. Since no bioluminescent organisms possess functioning chloroplasts, it follows that some organisms dwelling in the abyssal zone do not possess functioning chloroplasts.

Which of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most logically similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Some contemporary novels are written entirely in verse. Since no books written entirely in verse are easily translated, it follows that some contemporary novels are not easily translated.

Cevap

The argument about contemporary novels that are not easily translated.
The correct argument matches the exact logical blueprint of the original passage. Let A = contemporary novels, B = written entirely in verse, and C = easily translated. The structure is 'Some A are B. No B are C. Therefore, some A are not C.' This perfectly mirrors the 'Some A are B. No B are C. Therefore, some A are not C' structure of the stimulus.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure of the stimulus.
Premise 1: Some A (abyssal zone organisms) are B (bioluminescent). Premise 2: No B (bioluminescent organisms) are C (possess functioning chloroplasts). Conclusion: Some A (abyssal zone organisms) are not C (possess functioning chloroplasts).
Identifying the formal logic components and quantifiers is necessary to find an exact structural match.
2
Evaluate the validity of the stimulus.
The argument is logically valid. The intersection of A and B guarantees that at least one A is subject to the rule that excludes all B from C.
A parallel argument must share the exact same validity status.
3
Examine the answer choices for a matching structural pattern.
The correct answer matches the pattern perfectly: Some X (contemporary novels) are Y (written in verse). No Y (written in verse) are Z (easily translated). Therefore, some X are not Z.
This guarantees identical quantifier distribution and logical flow.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Quantifier Logic
Soru 89Soru →

Political Scientist: A government is justified in restricting a product's sale only if the product poses a severe health risk and the public is completely unaware of this risk. The newly developed synthetic sweetener Dulcet poses a severe risk of long-term metabolic damage. However, the manufacturer has heavily publicized this risk in all of its promotional materials. Therefore, the government is not justified in restricting the sale of Dulcet.

The application of the principle in the political scientist's argument is most similar to the application of the principle in which one of the following?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A university is justified in expelling a student for academic misconduct only if the misconduct was intentional and resulted in a significant unfair advantage. Smith's plagiarism on the final project was intentional, but because the project was ultimately ungraded, it yielded no unfair advantage. Thus, the university is not justified in expelling Smith.

Cevap

The option regarding the university expelling a student for academic misconduct.
The stimulus follows a valid application of a contrapositive involving a compound necessary condition. It states: Action -> (Condition 1 AND Condition 2). It then asserts that Condition 1 is met, but Condition 2 is NOT met, concluding that the Action is unjustified. The correct answer perfectly mirrors this logical structure: It establishes Expulsion -> (Intentional AND Advantage). It states the act was intentional (Condition 1) but yielded no advantage (Condition 2), correctly concluding that expulsion is unjustified.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the formal logic of the principle stated in the stimulus.
Rule: Restriction Justified -> (Severe Risk AND Unaware).
The phrase 'only if' introduces necessary conditions, and 'and' connects them into a compound necessary requirement.
2
Map the application of the facts to the principle in the stimulus.
Premises: Severe Risk is True, Unaware is False. Conclusion: Restriction Justified is False.
This establishes the argument as a valid application of the contrapositive: if even one part of a necessary 'AND' condition is unmet, the sufficient condition cannot occur.
3
Evaluate the options to find an identical valid compound contrapositive.
The correct answer sets up Rule: Expulsion Justified -> (Intentional AND Advantage). It states Intentional is True, Advantage is False, and concludes Expulsion Justified is False.
The logical structure perfectly maps onto the stimulus without committing any logical fallacies.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Principle Application using Compound Contrapositives
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 90Soru →

Pair each passage on the left with the passage on the right that mirrors its exact underlying sequence of quantifiers and its logical validity.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Most tropical rainforests contain undiscovered plant species. Every region containing undiscovered plant species is vital for medical research. Thus, most tropical rainforests are vital for medical research.
Some historical archives are privately funded. No privately funded institution is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, some historical archives are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Most acclaimed indie films feature unknown actors. Furthermore, most acclaimed indie films are produced on small budgets. Therefore, most films featuring unknown actors are produced on small budgets.
All registered dietitians have completed specialized academic degrees. Some individuals who have completed specialized academic degrees work exclusively in sports management. So, some registered dietitians work exclusively in sports management.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Left 1 matches Right 4; Left 2 matches Right 1; Left 3 matches Right 2; Left 4 matches Right 3.
The correct pairings abstract away the subject matter completely and focus solely on the formal structure of the argument. Valid arguments are matched strictly with valid arguments containing the exact same sequence of quantifiers, and logically flawed arguments are matched with arguments demonstrating the exact same specific quantifier misuse.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the formal logic and quantifier distribution of the arguments on the left side.
Left 1 is a valid 'Most+All' deduction. Left 2 is a valid 'Some+None' deduction. Left 3 is a flawed 'Most+Most' argument. Left 4 is a flawed 'All+Some' argument.
To identify the exact formal logic pattern required for a parallel match.
2
Analyze the formal logic and quantifier distribution of the arguments on the right side.
Right 1 is a valid 'Some+None'. Right 2 is a flawed 'Most+Most'. Right 3 is a flawed 'All+Some'. Right 4 is a valid 'Most+All'.
To map out the available structural templates for pairing.
3
Pair the arguments that share identically matching structures.
The valid 'Most+All' (Left 1) pairs with Right 4. The valid 'Some+None' (Left 2) pairs with Right 1. The flawed 'Most+Most' (Left 3) pairs with Right 2. The flawed 'All+Some' (Left 4) pairs with Right 3.
Parallel logic requires stripping away the subject matter and aligning the purely structural quantifier relationships.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Quantifier Logic
Soru 91Soru →

Studies indicate that elderly individuals who own pets are significantly less likely to suffer from clinical depression than those who do not. Clearly, the companionship provided by pets actively prevents the onset of depression in the elderly.

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Children who frequently play strategy board games score higher on cognitive reasoning tests than children who do not. It is evident that playing these games develops advanced cognitive reasoning skills.

Cevap

The correct answer is the argument regarding children who frequently play strategy board games.
The correct answer accurately parallels the logical structure and the specific flaw of the stimulus. The stimulus moves from a correlation (pet ownership and lower depression rates) to a definitive causal claim (pets prevent depression), ignoring the possibility of reverse causation. Similarly, this option moves from a correlation (playing strategy games and higher cognitive scores) to a definitive causal claim (playing games develops cognitive skills), ignoring the equally plausible reverse causation that children who already possess higher cognitive skills are naturally drawn to complex strategy games.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the premises of the stimulus argument.
The premise establishes a correlation: elderly individuals with pets have lower rates of depression than those without.
Identifying the nature of the evidence is the first step in determining the argument's structure.
2
Analyze the conclusion and identify the logical flaw in the stimulus.
The conclusion claims that owning pets (the cause) actively prevents depression (the effect). The flaw is assuming causation based solely on correlation, ignoring alternative explanations such as reverse causation (people who are not depressed are more likely to have the energy to adopt a pet).
To find a parallel flaw, one must precisely articulate the specific error in reasoning committed by the original argument.
3
Determine the structural template required for the correct answer.
Target template: Premise observes a correlation between X and Y. Conclusion definitively asserts that X causes Y.
A blueprint helps quickly eliminate answer choices that use different logical structures or different degrees of certainty.
4
Evaluate the answer choices against the target template.
The option about strategy board games observes a correlation (playing games and high scores) and asserts definitive causation (playing games develops the skills), matching the template perfectly.
Systematic evaluation ensures the selected option matches both the flaw type and the quantifier strength of the original argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Causal Reasoning (Correlation vs. Causation)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 92Soru →

The sudden discoloration of the town's water supply must have been caused by the recent plumbing upgrades at the municipal plant. The only other plausible explanation for the discoloration is a seasonal algae bloom, but environmental scientists have confirmed that the water temperatures are currently too low to support such a bloom.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The catastrophic failure of the server network was undoubtedly caused by a malicious cyberattack. The only other potential cause for a system-wide crash of this nature is a hardware malfunction, and diagnostics show that all physical hardware was operating perfectly at the time of the crash.

Cevap

The argument concluding that a cyberattack caused the server failure because the only other possible cause, a hardware malfunction, was completely ruled out.
The original argument is a valid application of causal elimination. It states a phenomenon (discoloration), limits the potential causes to exactly two options (plumbing or algae), provides evidence to completely rule out one option (algae), and logically concludes the remaining option (plumbing) is the cause. The correct choice identically structures its reasoning: it notes a phenomenon (server failure), identifies exactly two potential causes (cyberattack or hardware), rules out one with evidence (hardware), and concludes the remaining one (cyberattack) must be the cause.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure of the stimulus argument.
The stimulus identifies an effect (water discoloration), restricts the possible causes to exactly two options (plumbing upgrades or algae), rules out the second option with evidence (temperatures too low), and concludes the first option is the cause.
To find a parallel argument, one must first identify the exact logical and causal framework of the original text.
2
Evaluate the answer choices to find the identical structural pattern.
Only the argument about the server network matches this 'Causal Elimination' structure: Effect (server crash) -> Two causes (cyberattack or hardware) -> Hardware ruled out (operating perfectly) -> Conclusion (cyberattack is the cause).
Parallel reasoning requires matching the underlying structural pattern and validity of the argument, completely independent of the subject matter.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Causal Reasoning (Causal Elimination)
Soru 93Soru →

Below are four brief arguments, each containing a specific logical vulnerability related to cause and effect. Pair each argument with the analytical description that accurately diagnoses its causal flaw.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

An analysis of municipal records shows that neighborhoods with a high concentration of coffee shops also have exceptionally high rates of bicycle theft. Therefore, the presence of coffee shops must attract bicycle thieves to the area.
Patients diagnosed with the rare joint condition known as Zeno's syndrome consistently exhibit unusually high levels of calcium in their blood. Therefore, excessive blood calcium levels must be the cause of Zeno's syndrome.
Immediately after the municipal government installed new energy-efficient streetlights downtown, local businesses reported a significant surge in retail sales. The new lighting clearly encouraged more people to shop in the district.
Every time the primary coolant valve malfunctions, the reactor's core temperature exceeds safe limits. Thus, by simply upgrading the primary coolant valve to prevent it from malfunctioning, we can guarantee that the reactor's core temperature will remain within safe limits.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Match the coffee shop argument to the third-factor flaw; the Zeno's syndrome argument to the reverse-causality flaw; the streetlight argument to the time-sequence flaw; and the reactor argument to the single-cause assumption flaw.
Each argument represents a distinct, classic causal fallacy tested on the LSAT. The coffee shop argument fails to account for a common cause (third factor). The Zeno's syndrome argument arbitrarily assigns a direction to a correlation (reverse causality). The streetlight argument mistakes sequence for consequence (time sequence). The reactor argument mistakes a sufficient cause for a necessary one (eliminating one cause).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the 'coffee shops and bicycle theft' argument.
Identified that it infers causation directly from a spatial correlation.
This matches the 'third factor' description, as an underlying variable like high urban density could easily cause both high coffee shop presence and high bike theft rates.
2
Analyze the 'Zeno's syndrome and blood calcium' argument.
Identified that it infers a specific causal direction from a physiological correlation.
This matches the 'reverse cause' description, as it is highly possible the disease causes the elevated calcium, rather than the calcium causing the disease.
3
Analyze the 'streetlights and retail sales' argument.
Identified that it bases its causal claim purely on a temporal sequence (one thing happening right after another).
This aligns perfectly with the description diagnosing a chronological 'takes for granted' flaw.
4
Analyze the 'reactor coolant valve' argument.
Identified that it assumes preventing one known cause will prevent the effect entirely.
This matches the description that points out the error of treating the elimination of one catalyst as a guarantee against the outcome, ignoring other potential causes.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Formal Causal Fallacies
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 94Soru →

Below are three original causal arguments and three parallel arguments that exhibit identical logical reasoning structures. Pair each original argument on the left with the argument on the right that most closely parallels its specific method of causal reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Cities with the highest density of fire stations also report the most fire-related property damage. Clearly, the presence of fire stations causes an increase in fire-related property damage.
People who drink diet soda tend to gain more weight than those who do not. However, people who are already struggling with weight gain are significantly more likely to consume diet soda as a corrective measure. Therefore, a pre-existing struggle with weight, rather than diet soda consumption, explains the weight gain.
Since the factory installed new air filters, respiratory complaints among workers have dropped by half. This cannot be due to the recently introduced mandatory exercise program, because only management participated in the exercise program, yet complaints dropped evenly among assembly line workers. Thus, the new air filters caused the reduction in complaints.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The original argument about fire stations pairs with the argument about police officers. The argument about diet soda pairs with the argument about compression sleeves. The argument about factory air filters pairs with the argument about the orchard pesticide.
The correct pairings match arguments based on identical causal frameworks: assuming reverse causation (fire stations / police), introducing a pre-existing common cause to defeat a causal claim (diet soda / compression sleeves), and ruling out alternative explanations to strengthen a causal claim (air filters / pesticide).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the causal reasoning in the first original argument (fire stations).
The argument observes a correlation between a factor (fire stations) and an effect (fire damage) and concludes the factor causes the effect, entirely ignoring that the effect is what necessitates the factor.
Identifying the specific causal flaw (reverse causality) is necessary to find its structural parallel.
2
Locate the parallel argument for the first original argument.
The argument about police officers and crime rates exhibits the exact same reverse causality flaw.
Both confuse a structural or institutional response to a phenomenon with the cause of that phenomenon.
3
Analyze the causal reasoning in the second original argument (diet soda).
The argument observes a correlation but argues against a direct causal link by pointing out a pre-existing condition (struggle with weight) that causes both the behavior and the outcome.
Understanding how the argument provides an alternate explanation for a correlation is key.
4
Locate the parallel argument for the second original argument.
The argument about compression sleeves and joint pain uses the identical logical structure, citing pre-existing discomfort as the true cause of both the sleeve usage and the continued pain.
Both arguments successfully undermine a direct causal claim by introducing a common root cause.
5
Analyze the causal reasoning in the third original argument (air filters) and locate its parallel.
The argument eliminates an alternative cause (exercise program) to conclude that the primary cause (air filters) is responsible. It parallels the pesticide argument, which rules out the new irrigation system.
Both arguments use the method of difference or elimination to support their primary causal conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Causal Reasoning
Soru 95Soru →

Principle: An academic institution is justified in revoking a previously awarded degree only if the graduate committed academic fraud that fundamentally altered their qualifications. However, if the fraud was orchestrated by a faculty member without the student's willing participation, the degree should not be revoked.
Application: University X discovered that Alana's thesis was entirely written by her advisor, without her knowledge, to secure a grant. Although this fraud fundamentally altered Alana's qualifications, she did not willingly participate. Thus, University X should not revoke Alana's degree.

Which one of the following arguments most closely conforms to the principle applied in the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Principle: A municipality may seize private property via eminent domain only if the land will be used for a public utility. However, if the land contains a registered historical landmark, it must not be seized.
Application: The city intends to seize the Miller property to build a public water treatment plant. Because the property contains a registered historical landmark, the city must not seize it.

Cevap

The correct argument applies a necessary condition for an action, introduces a sufficient condition that overrides it to forbid the action, and concludes that the action must not be taken because both conditions are met.
The correct answer exactly matches the logical blueprint of the stimulus. It presents a general rule with a necessary condition ('may seize... only if... public utility'), followed by a sufficient condition that overrides it ('if... historical landmark, it must not be seized'). The application then describes a scenario where the necessary condition is met, but the override condition is also met, correctly concluding that the action must not be taken. This mirrors the stimulus perfectly without introducing any logical flaws.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical blueprint of the stimulus.
Principle 1 establishes a necessary condition (Justified in revoking ONLY IF fraud). Principle 2 establishes an override condition (IF orchestrated without knowledge, then NOT revoked). The application meets both conditions and concludes NOT revoked.
To evaluate parallel arguments, you must first precisely define the logical structure and flow of the target argument.
2
Evaluate the correct option against the blueprint.
It establishes a necessary condition (Seize ONLY IF public utility) and a sufficient override (IF historical, MUST NOT seize). The application meets both conditions and concludes MUST NOT seize.
A correct parallel reasoning answer must match the exact logical sequence and conditional relationships.
3
Eliminate distractors based on structural flaws.
The incorrect options fail due to committing an illegal reversal, confusing necessary for sufficient conditions, applying a quantifier mismatch, or shifting the scope of the conclusion.
Distractors in parallel reasoning often contain recognizable logical fallacies that were not present in the original valid stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Principle Application
Soru 96Soru →

Analyze the four causal arguments below. Pair each argument with the abstract description that most accurately characterizes its causal reasoning structure or logical vulnerability.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Whenever the municipality enforces a temporary commercial noise ordinance, overall retail revenue in the district drops. Since local consumer spending habits and broader economic conditions remained entirely unchanged during these enforcement periods, the noise ordinances must be responsible for the decline in retail revenue.
Extensive financial surveys reveal a strong correlation between purchasing a luxury yacht and having an exceptional credit score. Therefore, the act of purchasing a luxury yacht must directly cause an individual's credit score to improve.
Historical data demonstrates that on days when the coastal theme park sells the highest volume of sunglasses, the nearby public beaches report the highest number of jellyfish stings. This proves that wearing sunglasses somehow attracts jellyfish to the shore.
Installing advanced HEPA filtration systems in large office buildings reduces airborne particulate matter. A reduction in airborne particulate matter directly leads to a decrease in employee sick days. Therefore, installing these filtration systems will result in fewer employee sick days.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument 1 pairs with eliminating alternatives; Argument 2 pairs with reverse causality; Argument 3 pairs with the third-variable fallacy; Argument 4 pairs with the transitive causal chain.
Each argument demonstrates a distinct paradigm of causal reasoning commonly tested on the LSAT. The retail revenue argument isolates a cause by eliminating alternatives. The luxury yacht argument commits a reverse causality fallacy. The sunglasses argument commits a third-variable (common cause) fallacy. The HEPA filtration argument uses a structurally valid transitive causal chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the retail revenue argument.
It concludes the noise ordinance caused the revenue drop by stating other conditions remained stable.
This matches the structure of establishing causation by ruling out alternatives.
2
Analyze the luxury yacht argument.
It concludes that buying the yacht causes a good credit score.
This matches the description of overlooking reverse causality, since a good credit score is required to buy a yacht.
3
Analyze the sunglasses and jellyfish argument.
It assumes wearing sunglasses attracts jellyfish.
This matches the fallacy of ignoring a common third cause (warm, sunny weather causes both events).
4
Analyze the HEPA filtration argument.
It maps out: A causes B, B causes C, therefore A causes C.
This matches the valid derivation via an intermediate causal step.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Causal Reasoning
Soru 97Soru →

Principle: A city planner should approve a new commercial development project only if the project includes dedicated green spaces and does not significantly increase local traffic congestion.

Which of the following judgments properly conform to the principle stated above? (Select all that apply.)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The proposed Horizon Plaza project will not increase local traffic congestion, but it fails to include dedicated green spaces. Therefore, the city planner should not approve the project.; The Riverfront Mall project includes extensive dedicated green spaces, but it will significantly increase local traffic congestion. Thus, the city planner should not approve the project.

Cevap

The correct answers are the judgments concerning the Horizon Plaza project and the Riverfront Mall project.
Both correct judgments validly apply the contrapositive of the principle. The principle establishes that having green spaces and not significantly increasing traffic are both strictly necessary for approval. Therefore, if either condition fails, approval must be denied, which is precisely what the two correct judgments logically conclude.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conditional relationship established in the principle.
Approve Project -> Includes dedicated green spaces AND Does not significantly increase traffic.
The phrase 'only if' introduces necessary conditions.
2
Formulate the valid contrapositive of the principle.
If a project does NOT include dedicated green spaces OR DOES significantly increase traffic -> The planner should NOT approve the project.
The contrapositive is the only valid deduction that can be made from a conditional statement. It is formed by negating and reversing the terms, changing 'AND' to 'OR'.
3
Evaluate each judgment against the original conditional and its contrapositive.
The judgments about Horizon Plaza and Riverfront Mall properly deduce that a failure to meet at least one necessary condition means the project should not be approved. The others commit logical fallacies.
To properly conform to the principle, a judgment must logically follow strictly from the stated rule.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic: Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions and Contrapositives
Soru 98Soru →

Under the terms of the regional theater's contract, an actor is permitted to miss a dress rehearsal only if they provide a doctor's note or receive explicit permission from the director. Liam neither provided a doctor's note nor received explicit permission from the director. Thus, Liam is not permitted to miss a dress rehearsal.

Which one of the following arguments relies on an application of a principle most similar to the principle applied in the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A publisher will accept an unsolicited manuscript only if it is accompanied by a literary agent's recommendation or has won a recognized writing competition. This manuscript lacks an agent's recommendation and has not won any recognized competition. Therefore, the publisher will not accept it.

Cevap

The argument about the publisher accepting an unsolicited manuscript perfectly parallels the logical structure of the original argument, applying the valid contrapositive of a necessary condition.
This option perfectly replicates the logical structure of the stimulus. The stimulus establishes a necessary condition containing an 'or' statement ('A occurs only if X or Y'). It then states that neither X nor Y occurred, correctly concluding that A is not permitted. This option follows the exact same valid contrapositive pattern: acceptance happens 'only if' an agent recommends it or it won a competition; neither condition was met; therefore, acceptance will not happen.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the logical structure of the stimulus argument.
The principle states: Action A (permitted to miss) requires Condition B (doctor's note) OR Condition C (director's permission). The application states: NOT B and NOT C occurred. The conclusion is: NOT A. This is a valid application of a conditional contrapositive.
Deconstructing the original argument is required to find an exact structural parallel in the answer choices.
2
Examine the correct option to verify its logical structure.
The publisher argument states: Action A (accept manuscript) requires Condition B (agent) OR Condition C (competition). The application states: NOT B and NOT C. The conclusion is: NOT A. This matches the stimulus exactly.
A parallel reasoning question requires the correct answer to have the identical premise-to-conclusion logical flow.
3
Evaluate the incorrect options to identify their structural deviations.
One option illegally reverses the logic (assuming a necessary condition guarantees an outcome). Another illegally negates it. A third uses a sufficient condition instead of a necessary one. The last uses a 'most' quantifier instead of an absolute rule.
Identifying the specific logical flaws or structural mismatches confirms why the distractors are incorrect.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Application of Conditional Contrapositives
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
ÖncekiSayfa 5 / 5
Parallel Reasoning Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 5 | Examkin