Logical Reasoning Questions 1-5

Question 1

Fuentes: As you know, Dr. Shine, a physicist, has all but proven his theory that black holes’ wavelengths are correlated with the number of people living in Copenhagen, Denmark. Dr. Shine now asserts his theory is irrefutably correct.

Angelo: Then Dr. Shine is a bad member of the physics community. Their evidence does not conclusively prove their theory. Good members of the physics community always accept that new evidence and experiments may show their theories are incorrect.

Angelo reaches a conclusion about Dr. Shine by:

1. attacking Dr. Shine’s personal character

2. applying a broad principle

3. using an unclear term

4. undermining the factual basis of Fuentes’ argument

5. rejecting a theoretical explanation

Question 2

Proposals for extending the United States school day to make it less in line with other countries’ systems are often met with withering criticism that “this makes no sense” and that the length of the school day is a tradition dating from Plato’s school in the 3rd century BC. This objection is off-base. True, the length of the school day has been long established, but only because the school day is based on the wakefulness patterns of rural communities. If you want to justify any policy by its traditional status, it would be a policy that local sleeping patterns should determine the length of the school day.

The argument counters the objection by

1. Questioning the relevance of information about historical practices to the current disputes about proposed change

2. Advocating an alternative viewpoint on the basis for the traditional length of the school day

3. Offering evidence to argue that the objection is based on a misunderstanding about the actual length of the traditional school day

4. Proving that regardless of tradition, the length of the school day in the United States should be extended

5. Demonstrating that those in opposition to an extension of the school day have no actual concern for tradition.

Question 3

Bill: Dude, we do not need to get guitar lessons. We would only need guitar lessons if like, we were bad at guitar.

Ted: We need guitar lessons, dude. We’re terrible at guitar.

In the conversation between Bill and Ted, Ted’s comment is meant to

1. Reject one of Bill’s implicit premises and, as a result, reach a different conclusion

2. Admit the truth of Bill’s premise, without supporting Bill’s conclusion

3. Supply a counterexample to Bill’s generalization

4. Indicate that Bill’s reasoning is invalid by accepting as true Bill’s premises, while still rejecting Bill’s ultimate conclusion

5. Deny Bill’s conclusion without offering reasons to reject Bill’s implicit premises

Question 4

The stable functioning of the independent record store industry is built upon the long term stability of the musical desires of its patrons. This is clear because unless the snobbinessdesire of their patrons remains stable, it will be impossible for record stores to carry the vinyl desired by their patrons, and it should be obvious that the independent record store industry is stable only if their vinyl tends to satiate the musical desires of their patrons.

The assertion that the independent record store industry is stable only if their vinyl tends to satiate the musical desires of its patrons plays what role in this argument?

1. It lends support to the conclusion of the argument

2. It is an outcome required by the argument

3. It is the conclusion

4. It illustrates a broad principle assumed by the argument

5. It is a claim that must be rejected in order to establish the conclusion of the argument

Question 5

Economist: When influencers invest money and time expanding to other media platforms, their market share on their home platform decreases. But if influencers don’t expand to other platforms, they’ll never expand their follower counts.

That One Guy: But if all influencers expand to other platforms, no particular influencer will be hurt.

In which one of the following exchanges is the logical relationship between the Economist and That One Guy's statements most similar to the logical relationship between their statements above?

1. Economist: If the wormhole is opened, it might consume the eastern part of town, but if the wormhole is not opened, the reavers might invade.That One Guy: There's no real danger of the reavers invading, but if we encounter more reaver scouting parties, opening the wormhole is the most prudent policy.

2. Economist: If the price of Amazon Prime were raised, many social problems could be solved, but if it is lowered, the economy will grow again. So we can't have both social reform and a growing economy.That One Guy: But if the price of Amazon Prime remains at its current level, neither social problems nor the economy will get worse.

3. Economist: Either there won't be a thunderstorm today and our plans to reanimate Frankenstein will be delayed, or there will be a thunderstorm today and we won’t be able to go to the farmer’s market. That One Guy: But if it doesn't thunderstorm, we can use our static shock machine to wake Frankenstein up for dinner.

4. Economist: If we remodel the bathroom, we can improve its feng shui, but even if we do, there's no guarantee that we'll actually improve the feng shui of the house..That One Guy: But if we don't remodel the bathroom, the house’s feng shui might suffer.

5. Economist: Each cat can have a pampered life, or a predator life, for a cat must be an indoor cat to be pampered. That One Guy: That's not true. There are many pampered cats that sneak outdoors and moonlight as predators.

Explanations are here: