Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaSyllogism and Categorical Propositions

Consider the provided statements to be absolutely true, ignoring commonly known facts. Based solely on these statements, which of the deduced conclusions logically hold?

Statements:
• All Tier-9 security clearances are restricted mandates.
• No restricted mandate is a public disclosure.
• Some public disclosures are controversial leaks.

Conclusions:
[I] No Tier-9 security clearance is a public disclosure.
[II] Some Tier-9 security clearances are restricted mandates.
[III] Some controversial leaks are not restricted mandates.

Which of the following is correct?

  1. A
    Conclusion I and conclusion II logically hold
  2. B
    Conclusion II and conclusion III logically hold
  3. C
    All three conclusions logically hold
  4. Conclusion I and conclusion III logically holdCevap

Cevap

Conclusion I and conclusion III logically hold
Conclusion I is valid because the set of Tier-9 clearances is a subset of restricted mandates, which is entirely disjoint from public disclosures. Conclusion III is valid because there is a proven overlap between controversial leaks and public disclosures; since public disclosures are strictly disjoint from restricted mandates, that specific overlapping segment cannot be restricted. Conclusion II is properly excluded because deriving 'some' directly from 'all' commits the existential fallacy.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the relationship between Tier-9 security clearances and public disclosures to evaluate Conclusion I.
Since all Tier-9 clearances are completely contained within restricted mandates, and restricted mandates share no overlap with public disclosures, Tier-9 clearances cannot overlap with public disclosures.
Validates Conclusion I: No Tier-9 security clearance is a public disclosure.
2
Evaluate Conclusion II against the rules of formal categorical propositions regarding existential import.
The premise states 'All Tier-9 security clearances are restricted mandates'. Under modern formal logic, universal premises (All/No) do not guarantee that the subject exists. Deducing a particular conclusion ('Some') from a universal premise without proof of existence commits the existential fallacy.
Invalidates Conclusion II as it assumes existential import.
3
Analyze the relationship between controversial leaks and restricted mandates to evaluate Conclusion III.
We know some controversial leaks intersect with public disclosures. Because no public disclosures are allowed to be restricted mandates, that specific intersecting portion of controversial leaks can never be restricted mandates.
Validates Conclusion III: Some controversial leaks are not restricted mandates.

Anahtar Kavram

Syllogistic validity, categorical intersections, and the existential fallacy.
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Syllogism and Categorical Propositions

Bu konudan daha fazla soru