Free Juris Doctor: Logical Reasoning Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Before performing an operation, good doctors make their patients aware of any potential hazards. Kate's doctor is unethical because, prior to performing the procedure, he failed to inform Kate of the hazards. <br> <br> Which of the following would allow a proper conclusion to be reached as an assumption?
- All ethical physicians are good physicians (Correct answer)
- Kate’s physician normally warns patients about the risks of procedures before she operates on her patients
- Some physicians who are good physicians fail to act ethically in every circumstance.
- If a physician does not warn a patient of the possible risks before the procedure, the physician is unethical.
Correct answer: All ethical physicians are good physicians
The argument states that good doctors inform patients of hazards, and Kate's doctor did not inform her, implying he is not a 'good doctor.' The conclusion then asserts he is 'unethical.' To logically connect 'not a good doctor' to 'unethical,' we need the assumption that if a doctor is not good, they are unethical. Option A, 'All ethical physicians are good physicians,' provides this link through its contrapositive: if a physician is not good, then they are not ethical, thus completing the argument's logical chain.
Question 2: Historian: Although some people contend that the Trois-Frères cave paintings depict scenes early humans experienced while hunting, these ancient cave paintings actually represent some of the earliest known examples of early human religious rituals. For example, in the caves’ entrance, paintings show a variety of animals harmoniously gliding through space. The animals in the painting are not animals that would typically cohabitate peacefully. Likewise, at the center of the cave, a large picture of a half-animal, half-man creature is painted high on the ceiling in a place often referred to as “the cathedral”. The half-animal, half-man creature represents the homosapiens early representation of a god that they believed controlled all the animals they hunted, and the floating animals represent the spirits of the dead animals returning to their god. <br> <br> Which of the following, if accurate, would support the author's main assertion the most?
- The animals depicted in the cave were animals often hunted by early human predecessors.
- The half-animal, half-man creature painted in the center of the cave does not remotely resemble any animal that has ever existed. (Correct answer)
- Underneath the paintings, archaeologists discovered piles of burned animal bones.
- Recently, someone discovered a sculpture carved out of flint that looked very much like the half-animal, half-beast creature.
Correct answer: The half-animal, half-man creature painted in the center of the cave does not remotely resemble any animal that has ever existed.
The historian argues that the cave paintings represent religious rituals, not hunting scenes, citing the depiction of a 'half-animal, half-man creature' as a god figure. If this creature does not resemble any real animal, it strongly supports the idea that it is a mythical or supernatural entity, rather than a realistic depiction of a person or animal. This directly bolsters the historian's claim that the paintings have a religious or spiritual significance, providing the strongest support for the main assertion.
Question 3: According to studies, the population of cities with more churches is typically less educated than the population of places with fewer churches. The rejection of scientific notions like the theory of evolution or global warming is encouraged by many churches today. Today's churches often caution members against holding beliefs that run counter to their teachings. Therefore, cities with greater populations have more inhabitants who doubt the knowledge they learn in educational institutions like high schools and colleges because they are taught to disbelieve science and to disbelieve any information that might contradict church doctrines. <br> <br> This argument is weak for the following reasons:
- presumes, without providing justification, that all educational institutions teach that global warming and evolution are true.
- presumes without providing justification that churchgoers always believe what they learn at church more than what they learn at an educational setting
- overlooks the possibility that cities with fewer churches have fewer churches as people are less likely to attend church the more educated they become (Correct answer)
- does not consider that cities with more churches also have larger populations.
Correct answer: overlooks the possibility that cities with fewer churches have fewer churches as people are less likely to attend church the more educated they become
The argument concludes that cities with more churches have less educated populations who doubt scientific notions. However, it overlooks an alternative causal explanation: that people who become more educated might be less likely to attend church, leading to fewer churches in highly educated areas. This reverse causality weakens the original argument by suggesting that education levels could be influencing church presence, rather than the other way around, thus failing to consider a crucial confounding factor.
Question 4: Architects that appreciate historic architecture are able to design very innovative modern buildings. Without having an appreciation for historic architecture, an architect can never design a famous modern building. <br> <br> If the above statements are true, which of the following statements can be properly inferred?
- If an architect wants to design a very innovative building, the architect must appreciate historic architecture.
- Architects that design famous modern buildings design innovative buildings.
- If an architect is not able to design very innovative modern buildings, then that architect can never design a famous building. (Correct answer)
- Architects who appreciate historic architecture can design famous modern buildings.
Correct answer: If an architect is not able to design very innovative modern buildings, then that architect can never design a famous building.
The second statement establishes that an architect *must* appreciate historic architecture to design a famous modern building (FM -> HA). The first statement indicates that appreciating historic architecture *enables* an architect to design very innovative modern buildings (HA -> IV). Combining these, if an architect designs a famous modern building, they must appreciate historic architecture, and thus are able to design innovative buildings (FM -> IV). Option C is the contrapositive of this inference (NOT IV -> NOT FM), meaning if an architect is *not* able to design very innovative modern buildings, then they can never design a famous building, which must also be true.
Question 5: Jake: In many places, physician assistants and nurse practitioners are capable of carrying out practically all of the treatments that were previously reserved for doctors. This demonstrates that despite their longer education, doctors learn no more in medical school than nurse practitioners and physician assistants do. <br> <br> Although it is true that many nurse practitioners and physician assistants carry out many of the same procedures as doctors, Adriana points out that many states still demand that a doctor supervise any procedure carried out by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant. As a result, doctors undoubtedly receive training that nurse practitioners and physician assistants do not. <br> <br> The conversation suggests that Jake and Adriana most likely disagree with:
- physicians receive training at medical school that nurse practitioners or physician assistants do not. (Correct answer)
- it is necessary for a physician to oversee procedures performed by nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
- doctors should be paid the same as physicians assistants or nurse practitioners.
- medical school is overpriced.
Correct answer: physicians receive training at medical school that nurse practitioners or physician assistants do not.
Jake argues that because physician assistants and nurse practitioners can perform many of the same treatments as doctors, doctors learn no more in medical school. Adriana directly refutes this by pointing out that many states still require doctors to supervise PAs and NPs, implying that doctors must possess additional, distinct training. Their core disagreement is precisely about whether physicians receive training that nurse practitioners and physician assistants do not, with Jake denying it and Adriana affirming it.
Question 6: Mayor: There is a severe dearth of funding for the city's police department. Due to a lack of funds, our dedicated officers are forced to operate antiquated equipment and drive antiquated cars. If we want to keep our citizens safe, we must allocate more money to the police department so that personnel can be adequately equipped with better tools and vehicles. Officers can't effectively battle crime if they don't have the necessary tools. <br> <br> Which of the following would substantially undermine the mayor's case if true?
- The last mayor increased the police force’s budget to pay for a new jail.
- Past mayors didn’t see the need for new equipment and chose not to increase the police force’s budget.
- Recent studies show that many cities have police forces that are severely underfunded.
- Statistics show that supplying officers with new technology and new vehicles has no impact on crime. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Statistics show that supplying officers with new technology and new vehicles has no impact on crime.
The mayor's case relies on the premise that allocating more money for new police equipment and vehicles will enable officers to more effectively battle crime and keep citizens safe. If statistics demonstrate that supplying officers with new technology and vehicles has no impact on crime rates, it directly undermines this crucial causal link in the mayor's argument. This evidence would show that the proposed solution would not achieve the desired outcome, thereby substantially weakening the entire case for increased funding for equipment.
Question 7: When they feel their job is not valued, they get dissatisfied with it. Employees stay with their employers for a long time when they receive frequent praise for their efforts and straightforward communication when they are underperforming. Underappreciated workers always leave their employment eventually. <br> <br> Which of the following things must also be true if the aforementioned claim is accurate?
- Employees who perform well are more likely to stay in a job because their employers give them more compliments.
- Employers that compliment employees and communicate when employees are under performing have satisfied employees. (Correct answer)
- Satisfied employees are uncommon.
- Employers who frequently lose employees must treat their employees poorly.
Correct answer: Employers that compliment employees and communicate when employees are under performing have satisfied employees.
The statements indicate that employees stay with employers for a long time when they receive frequent praise and straightforward communication. It is also stated that underappreciated workers eventually leave and become dissatisfied. If employees receive praise and communication, they stay for a long time, which implies they are not underappreciated and therefore feel valued. Since feeling valued is the opposite of feeling unvalued (which leads to dissatisfaction), it logically follows that these employees are satisfied, making option B a necessary truth.
Free Juris Doctor: Logical Reasoning Questions and Answers
Before performing an operation, good doctors make their patients aware of any potential hazards.
Kate's doctor is unethical because, prior to performing the procedure, he failed to inform Kate of the hazards.
Which of the following would allow a proper conclusion to be reached as an assumption?