Examkin

Flaw in the Reasoning

102 soru

Tüm türler102Çoktan seçmeli53Eşleştirme49
Soru 101Soru →

Examine the following five independent argumentative assertions. Match each argument with the abstract description of the logical vulnerability that most accurately identifies its primary reasoning error.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The proposed regulatory framework for maritime shipping should be dismissed out of hand. Its chief architect was recently discovered to hold significant investments in the rail freight industry, demonstrating a clear motivation to cripple maritime competitors rather than genuinely improve environmental standards.
To maintain a stable democracy, citizens must respect the authority of the state. Therefore, it is essential that every citizen be an authority on civic duty, as one cannot properly respect what one does not embody.
Every individual component of the new ultra-lightweight composite aircraft wing has been rigorously tested and proven to withstand sheer forces exceeding 10,000 Newtons. Consequently, the assembled wing as a complete structural unit is guaranteed to withstand forces of at least 10,000 Newtons without catastrophic failure.
It is well established that comprehensive media literacy among voters is essential for the eradication of political disinformation. Recent curriculum overhauls in our public schools have finally ensured that all graduating seniors possess comprehensive media literacy; thus, we can confidently expect political disinformation to be eradicated in the next generation.
Historical analysis of agrarian societies shows that periods of intense focus on constructing monumental architecture invariably coincide with severe agricultural decline. It is clear that the diversion of labor to monument construction directly undermined the agricultural labor force, precipitating these declines.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match the source attack to the maritime argument, equivocation to the democracy argument, composition fallacy to the aircraft argument, necessary/sufficient confusion to the media literacy argument, and causal flaw to the agrarian society argument.
Each argument contains exactly one primary logical vulnerability that corresponds precisely to the matched abstract description. The maritime argument attacks the source. The democracy argument shifts definitions. The aircraft argument commits a part-to-whole fallacy. The media argument reverses a conditional relationship. The agrarian argument mistakes correlation for causation.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the maritime shipping argument.
Identified an attack on the architect's investments rather than the regulatory framework itself.
To match the argument with the description of rejecting a proposal based on suspected motives.
2
Analyze the democracy argument.
Identified the shifting usage of the word 'authority' (institutional power vs. expert knowledge).
To pair the argument with the description of trading on a term's ambiguity.
3
Analyze the aircraft wing argument.
Identified the leap from the strength of individual components to the strength of the assembled whole.
To link the argument with the description of presuming a system shares the characteristics of its parts.
4
Analyze the media literacy argument.
Identified the confusion between an 'essential' (necessary) condition and a sufficient condition for eradicating disinformation.
To connect the argument with the description of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
5
Analyze the agrarian societies argument.
Identified the assumption that monument construction directly caused agricultural decline based purely on their simultaneous occurrence.
To match the argument with the description of inferring causation from correlation without considering common causes.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying abstract logical flaws across distinct argumentative contexts.
Soru 102Soru →

Urban Planner: A downtown revitalization project can be considered a true economic catalyst only if it results in a substantial increase in local property values. The proposed waterfront redevelopment will undoubtedly lead to higher property values, as it replaces abandoned warehouses with luxury retail space. Therefore, we should allocate municipal funding to this project, because it is a proven fact that true economic catalysts always generate enough long-term tax revenue to easily justify their initial municipal investments.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the urban planner's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The argument infers that a project belongs to a particular category merely because it produces an outcome that is a prerequisite for belonging to that category.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option that points out the argument infers a project belongs to a category merely because it produces a prerequisite outcome for that category.
The argument exhibits a formal logic error in its conditional reasoning. The first sentence establishes that a project being an economic catalyst requires it to increase property values. The second sentence asserts that the waterfront project will increase property values. The argument then applies a broad rule about economic catalysts (they always justify investment) to conclude that the waterfront project will justify its investment. To reach this conclusion, the planner must implicitly assume that the waterfront project is an economic catalyst. However, the planner deduces this merely because the project meets a necessary condition (increasing values) for being an economic catalyst. Treating a necessary condition as a sufficient condition is a classic logical flaw, which is perfectly described by the correct answer's abstract wording.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into formal logical premises and conclusion.
Premise 1: True Economic Catalyst (TEC) implies increased property values. Premise 2: The waterfront project will increase property values. Premise 3: TEC implies justified municipal investment. Conclusion: The waterfront project will justify its municipal investment.
Mapping the conditional statements is essential for analyzing the validity of the logical progression.
2
Identify the logical gap or unstated intermediate conclusion used to connect the premises.
To get from Premise 2 to the Conclusion using Premise 3, the planner must implicitly conclude that the waterfront project is a True Economic Catalyst (TEC).
Complex LR questions often hide the primary logical flaw within an unstated intermediate step.
3
Evaluate the validity of the inference leading to the intermediate conclusion.
The planner infers the project is a TEC solely because it increases property values. However, Premise 1 stated that increasing property values is a necessary condition for being a TEC, not a sufficient one. This is a classic Conditional Reversal flaw.
Identifying the specific formal logic error allows you to match it with the correct abstract description in the options.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Reversal (Treating a Necessary Condition as Sufficient)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
ÖncekiSayfa 6 / 6
Flaw in the Reasoning Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 6 | Examkin