Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Read the following premises: All members of the finance committee are also on the advisory board. John is on the advisory board. Which of the following conclusions can be logically deduced?
- John is a member of the finance committee.
- Some members of the advisory board are not on the finance committee.
- All members of the advisory board are on the finance committee.
- No certain conclusion can be drawn about John's membership on the finance committee. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: No certain conclusion can be drawn about John's membership on the finance committee.
The premises state that being on the finance committee guarantees membership on the advisory board, but not the other way around. John's presence on the advisory board does not provide enough information to determine if he is on the finance committee. This is a common logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
Question 2: Scenario: If a company invests in new technology, its productivity will increase. If productivity increases, profits will rise. The company has invested in new technology. Based only on these statements, which conclusion must be true?
- The company's profits have not yet risen.
- The company's profits will rise. (Correct answer)
- Productivity will not increase if the company doesn't invest in new technology.
- The company's investment was the most profitable decision.
Correct answer: The company's profits will rise.
This scenario follows a classic deductive structure called a syllogism (If A, then B; If B, then C; Given A, therefore C). Since the company invested in new technology (A), its productivity will increase (B), and because productivity will increase (B), its profits will rise (C). Therefore, the conclusion that profits will rise necessarily follows from the premises.
Question 3: Which of the following is a defining characteristic of a deductively valid conclusion?
- The conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true.
- The conclusion is based on specific observations to form a general rule.
- The conclusion provides new information not contained in the premises.
- If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
Deductive reasoning is defined by its logical structure, where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. If an argument is deductively valid, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
Question 4: Premises: Some of the senior partners at the law firm are attending the conference. Everyone attending the conference will receive a new tablet. Based on these premises, which conclusion can be logically deduced?
- All senior partners at the law firm will receive a new tablet.
- Some of the senior partners at the law firm will receive a new tablet. (Correct answer)
- No senior partners who are not at the conference will receive a new tablet.
- Everyone who receives a new tablet is a senior partner.
Correct answer: Some of the senior partners at the law firm will receive a new tablet.
The first premise establishes that a portion of the 'senior partners' group is also in the 'attending the conference' group. The second premise states that everyone in the 'attending the conference' group will receive a tablet. Therefore, it logically follows that the overlapping portion of senior partners who are attending will receive a tablet.
Question 5: Scenario: All certified accountants must pass a professional ethics exam. Maria is a certified accountant. What can be deduced from these statements?
- Maria found the ethics exam to be difficult.
- Anyone who has passed the ethics exam is a certified accountant.
- Maria has passed the professional ethics exam. (Correct answer)
- Maria is a newly certified accountant.
Correct answer: Maria has passed the professional ethics exam.
This is a straightforward deductive argument. The first premise establishes a rule for all certified accountants. The second premise places Maria within that category. Therefore, the rule must apply to her, and the only logical conclusion is that she has passed the exam.
Question 6: Premises: No vehicles that fail the emissions test are allowed on the road. Mr. Smith's car is allowed on the road. Which of the following is a valid deductive conclusion?
- All cars on the road have passed the emissions test.
- Mr. Smith's car passed the emissions test. (Correct answer)
- Mr. Smith's car is new.
- Some vehicles that fail the emissions test are still on the road.
Correct answer: Mr. Smith's car passed the emissions test.
This is an example of modus tollens, a valid form of deductive argument. The first premise is 'If a vehicle failed the emissions test, then it is not allowed on the road.' The second premise is 'Mr. Smith's car is allowed on the road' (the negation of the consequent). Therefore, we can conclude the negation of the antecedent: 'Mr. Smith's car did not fail the emissions test,' which means it passed.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions Questions and Answers
Read the following premises: All members of the finance committee are also on the advisory board.
John is on the advisory board.
Which of the following conclusions can be logically deduced?