Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions Questions and Answers 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Premises: 'All employees who pass the certification exam receive a salary increase. Maria passed the certification exam.' What conclusion necessarily follows?
- Maria will probably receive a salary increase.
- Maria deserves a salary increase.
- Maria will receive a salary increase. (Correct answer)
- Maria received the highest score on the certification exam.
Correct answer: Maria will receive a salary increase.
The universal statement applies to all who pass — since Maria passed, the conclusion follows necessarily without qualification.
This is a valid categorical syllogism (All A are B; Maria is A; therefore Maria is B). The major premise is a universal affirmative — it covers every instance of passing the exam without exception. Since Maria falls into the category of employees who passed, the conclusion follows necessarily. Option A adds 'probably,' which is incorrect — the universal premise leaves no probabilistic room. Option B introduces a value judgment ('deserves') not derivable from logical premises. Option D introduces information about relative scores not contained in any premise.
Question 2: Premises: 'No project that exceeds its budget by more than 20% will receive continued funding. Project Orion has exceeded its budget by 25%.' What conclusion necessarily follows?
- Project Orion may lose its funding.
- Project Orion will not receive continued funding. (Correct answer)
- Project Orion's manager will be disciplined.
- Project Orion should be restructured to reduce costs.
Correct answer: Project Orion will not receive continued funding.
The premise uses 'no project' — a universal negative — meaning the rule applies without exception to all projects exceeding budget by more than 20%, including Orion at 25%.
The major premise establishes a universal negative: there are no exceptions to the 'exceeds 20% budget → no continued funding' rule. Project Orion's 25% overrun places it firmly within this category (25% > 20%). Therefore the conclusion follows necessarily: Orion will not receive continued funding. Option A adds 'may,' which incorrectly introduces uncertainty into a determinate logical conclusion. Options C and D go beyond the premises by introducing consequences (discipline, restructuring) not stated anywhere. Deductive conclusions must follow from premises alone, with no added assumptions.
Question 3: Premises: 'If a candidate scores above 80 on the aptitude test, they advance to the interview stage. James scored 74 on the aptitude test.' What conclusion necessarily follows?
- James will not advance to the interview stage. (Correct answer)
- James may still advance if there are exceptional circumstances.
- James should retake the aptitude test.
- James scored below average on the aptitude test.
Correct answer: James will not advance to the interview stage.
74 is below the 80 threshold, so the condition for advancing is not met — James will not advance to the interview stage.
The conditional statement establishes: score > 80 → advances. James scored 74, which is below 80. Therefore the antecedent condition is not satisfied, and James does not advance. This is the logically valid form of modus tollens: the consequence (advancing) does not occur when the condition is unmet. Option B introduces 'exceptional circumstances' not mentioned in the premises — adding conditions not in the logical structure. Option C prescribes action not implied by the premises. Option D requires knowing the average score, which is not given. Option A follows directly from the conditional logic.
Question 4: Premises: 'All managers in Division A are certified accountants. Some certified accountants are also licensed auditors.' What conclusion necessarily follows?
- All Division A managers are licensed auditors.
- Some Division A managers may be licensed auditors. (Correct answer)
- No Division A managers are licensed auditors.
- All licensed auditors are managers in Division A.
Correct answer: Some Division A managers may be licensed auditors.
Since some certified accountants are licensed auditors, and all Division A managers are certified accountants, it is possible (but not certain) that some Division A managers are among those licensed auditors.
From P1 (All Division A managers are certified accountants) and P2 (Some certified accountants are licensed auditors), we can conclude that it is logically possible that some Division A managers are licensed auditors. However, P2 does not specify which certified accountants are licensed auditors — they may or may not be the ones who are Division A managers. Therefore we cannot conclude 'all' (Option A), but we also cannot conclude 'none' (Option C). The weakest conclusion that necessarily follows — 'may be' — captures the logical entailment from a particular affirmative combined with a universal affirmative. Option D commits the fallacy of illicit conversion.
Question 5: Premises: 'Every contract signed before March 1st is subject to the old tax rate. Contract 47 was signed on February 15th.' What conclusion necessarily follows?
- Contract 47 is probably subject to the old tax rate.
- Contract 47 may be exempt from the old tax rate.
- Contract 47 is subject to the old tax rate. (Correct answer)
- Contract 47 was signed under favorable conditions.
Correct answer: Contract 47 is subject to the old tax rate.
February 15th falls before March 1st, satisfying the condition exactly — the conclusion follows necessarily without any qualification.
The premise establishes a universal condition: all contracts signed before March 1st fall under the old tax rate. February 15th is unambiguously before March 1st. Therefore Contract 47 is subject to the old tax rate — this follows necessarily. Option A incorrectly adds 'probably,' which is inappropriate for a deterministic logical deduction. Option B introduces the possibility of exemption, which contradicts the universal premise. Option D introduces a value judgment ('favorable conditions') not derivable from the premises. On the WGCTA, when premises are universal and the specific case clearly falls within them, the conclusion is certain, not probabilistic.
Question 6: Premises: 'No country that has signed Treaty X imposes export tariffs on Treaty X members. Ruritania has signed Treaty X. Waldoria is a member of Treaty X.' What necessarily follows?
- Ruritania does not impose export tariffs on Waldoria. (Correct answer)
- Waldoria imposes export tariffs on Ruritania.
- Ruritania and Waldoria have a free trade agreement.
- Waldoria has also signed Treaty X.
Correct answer: Ruritania does not impose export tariffs on Waldoria.
Ruritania signed Treaty X (so it cannot impose export tariffs on Treaty X members) and Waldoria is a Treaty X member — therefore Ruritania cannot impose export tariffs on Waldoria.
Three premises: (1) No Treaty X signatory imposes export tariffs on Treaty X members. (2) Ruritania is a Treaty X signatory. (3) Waldoria is a Treaty X member. From (1) and (2), Ruritania cannot impose export tariffs on any Treaty X member. From (3), Waldoria is a Treaty X member. Therefore, Ruritania cannot impose export tariffs on Waldoria — Option A follows necessarily. Option B makes a claim about Waldoria's behavior, which is not addressed by the premises. Option C introduces 'free trade agreement' — a broader concept not equivalent to a tariff rule. Option D assumes Waldoria signed, which is not stated — Waldoria is described as a 'member,' not a 'signatory.'
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions Questions and Answers 2
Premises: 'All employees who pass the certification exam receive a salary increase.
Maria passed the certification exam.' What conclusion necessarily follows?