2/7 CR Challenger
Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to light. On the basis of previously available evidence alone, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a party to the fraud, and Jamison’s active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively established.
The pattern of reasoning exhibited in the argument above most closely parallels that exhibited in which one of the following?
(A) Smith must not have purchased his house within the last year. He is listed as the owner of that house on the old list of property owners and anyone on the old list could not have purchased his or her property within the last year.
(B) Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today. Had she done so, she could not have been in Nantes until this afternoon, but she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11 o’clock this morning.
(C) Nofris must have lied when she said that she had not authorized the investigation. There is no doubt that she did authorize it, and authorizing and investigation is not something anyone is likely to have forgotten.
(D) Waugh must have known that last night’s class was canceled. Waugh was in the library yesterday and it would have been impossible for anyone in the library not to have seen the cancellation notices.
(E) LaForte must have deeply resented being passed over for promotion. He maintains otherwise, but only someone who felt badly treated would have made the kind of remark LaForte made at yesterday’s meeting.
3 comments:
e
excellent
http://www.sscmrmba.in
PrepTest 16 - Section 3 - Question 22 Logic of Philosophy Legend:/\ = And
\/ = Or
22. Further evidence bearing on Jamison's activities must have come to light. On the basis of previously available evidence alone, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a party to the fraud, and Jamison's active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively established. New evidence/Recent evidence
Contrapositive Structure/Argument
-p\/-q
Contrapositive Argument Structure looks like
A --> B
~B
----------
~A
• Premise 1: Previously available evidence was insufficient to prove Jamison's involvement in the fraud.
• Premise 2: New evidence has come to light.
• Conclusion: Jamison's active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively established.
The pattern of reasoning exhibited in the argument above most closely parallels that exhibited in which one of the following?
(A) Smith must not have purchased his house within the last year. He is listed as the owner of that house on the old list of property owners, and anyone on the old list could not have purchased his or her property within the last year. Not on Old evidence, Last Year's evidence
Positive Structure/Argument
p\/q
Positive Argument Structure looks like
A --> B
A
----------
B
• Premise 1: Smith's name is listed as the owner of the house on the old list of property owners.
• Assumption: The old list includes all property owners who acquired their properties before the current list was compiled.
• Assumption: The current list includes all property owners who acquired their properties within the last year.
• Conclusion: Smith must not have purchased his house within the last year.
(B) Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today. Had she done so, she could not have been in Nantes until this afternoon, but she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11 o'clock this morning. New evidence/Recent evidence
Contrapositive Structure/Argument
-p\/-q
Contrapositive Argument Structure looks like
A --> B
~B
----------
~A (Only B has new evidence)
• Premise: Turner was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11:00 AM.
• Assumption: The usual train to Nantes arrives in the afternoon.
• Conclusion: Turner did not take her usual train to Nantes on that day.
This statement in Choice B is confusing. It simply implies that Turner deviated from her usual routine of taking a particular train to Nantes on the current day. The evidence is based on the new evidence or the fact that someone visually saw her having coffee in Nantes at 11 o'clock in the morning, a time when she typically would not have arrived if she had taken her regular train. This means the usual train takes to Nantes in the afternoon, not the morning. Meaning she did not take the usual train. Correct Answer B
(C) Norris must have lied when she said that she had not authorized the investigation. There is no doubt that she did authorize it, and authorizing an investigation is not something anyone is likely to have forgotten. Based on Assumption, Not evidence
(D) Waugh must have known that last night's class was canceled. Waugh was in the library yesterday, and it would have been impossible for anyone in the library not to have seen the cancellation notices. Based on Assumption, Not evidence
(E) LaForte must have deeply resented being passed over for promotion. He maintains otherwise, but only someone who felt badly treated would have made the kind of remark LaForte made at yesterday's meeting. Based on Assumption, Not evidence
https://www.lsatexpert.com/
https://youtu.be/cyqmZ2GdHvQ
Post a Comment