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: No city in Region A has a population under 50,000. Premise: Millbrook is a city in Region A. Conclusion: Millbrook has a population of at least 50,000. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — the universal negative leaves no exceptions for Region A cities.
Because no city in Region A has a population under 50,000 and Millbrook is a city in Region A, Millbrook must have at least 50,000 people.
Premise: All board members who attended the summit signed the agreement. Premise: Director Chen did not sign the agreement. Conclusion: Director Chen did not attend the summit. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — not signing is proof of non-attendance given the premise.
Since attending the summit guarantees signing, the absence of a signature (contrapositive) guarantees non-attendance.
Premise: Either the server is overloaded or the network is down. Premise: The server is not overloaded. Conclusion: The network is down. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — eliminating one disjunct in an either/or statement forces the other.
An 'either/or' premise guarantees at least one is true; ruling out the server being overloaded means the network must be down.
Premise: All registered voters in Precinct 7 received a ballot. Premise: Ms. Rivera received a ballot. Conclusion: Ms. Rivera is a registered voter in Precinct 7. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion does not follow — ballots may have been distributed to other groups as well.
The premise says registered voters received ballots, not that receiving a ballot is exclusive to registered voters in Precinct 7; others may have also received ballots.
Premise: Every product recalled by the agency contained defective components. Premise: Product X was recalled by the agency. Conclusion: Product X contained defective components. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — the universal rule covers every recalled product, including Product X.
Since every recalled product contained defective components and Product X was recalled, it necessarily follows that Product X contained defective components.
Premise: No athletes in the league tested positive for banned substances this year. Premise: Jordan competes in the league. Conclusion: Jordan did not test positive for banned substances this year. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — the universal negative includes Jordan as a league athlete.
The premise states no athlete in the league tested positive, and Jordan is a league athlete, so it follows necessarily that Jordan did not test positive.
Premise: If tuition increases by more than 5%, enrollment will decline. Premise: Enrollment did not decline. Conclusion: Tuition did not increase by more than 5%. Is this conclusion valid?
Answer: The conclusion follows — it is the valid contrapositive of the conditional premise.
The contrapositive of 'if P then Q' is 'if not Q then not P,' which is logically equivalent; since enrollment did not decline, tuition did not increase by more than 5%.