Drawing Deductive Conclusions Flashcards
7 cards from real Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Drawing Deductive Conclusions flashcards as text
Premise: Only employees with security clearance may access Level 3 files. Premise: Janelle accessed Level 3 files. Conclusion: Janelle has security clearance. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — only cleared employees can access Level 3 files, so Janelle must be cleared.
Since access to Level 3 files is restricted exclusively to cleared employees and Janelle accessed them, she must have clearance.
Premise: No first-year students are eligible for the research grant. Premise: All members of the honors program are eligible for the research grant. Conclusion: No first-year students are members of the honors program. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — the two premises together exclude first-year students from the honors program.
If all honors members are grant-eligible and no first-year student is grant-eligible, then no first-year student can be an honors member.
Premise: If a patient takes medication Z, their symptoms will subside within 48 hours. Premise: Patient A's symptoms subsided within 48 hours. Conclusion: Patient A took medication Z. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion does not follow — symptoms can subside for reasons other than medication Z.
The premise establishes that medication Z is sufficient to cause symptom relief, not that it is the only way symptoms subside.
Premise: All fruit in this basket is either an apple or an orange. Premise: This item from the basket is not an apple. Conclusion: This item is an orange. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — if it is not an apple and only apples and oranges are present, it must be an orange.
The basket contains only apples and oranges; since the item is not an apple, it must be an orange.
Premise: Every player on the varsity team scored at least one goal this season. Premise: Kevin is on the varsity team. Conclusion: Kevin scored more than five goals this season. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion does not follow — the premise only guarantees at least one goal, not more than five.
The premise guarantees at least one goal per player, but says nothing about scoring more than five; that conclusion exceeds what the premises support.
Premise: All contracts signed after January 1st are subject to the new tax code. Premise: The Dawson contract was signed on March 15th. Conclusion: The Dawson contract is subject to the new tax code. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — March 15th is after January 1st, satisfying the condition.
March 15th is after January 1st, so the Dawson contract meets the condition stated in the premise and is subject to the new tax code.
Premise: Some scientists are also poets. Premise: All poets appreciate metaphor. Conclusion: All scientists appreciate metaphor. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion does not follow — only the scientists who are poets necessarily appreciate metaphor.
Only the subset of scientists who are poets is covered by the second premise; the conclusion improperly extends it to all scientists.