Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Applying Deductive Reasoning 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Premise: All contracts require two parties. Premise: A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is not signed by two parties in this case. Conclusion: This MOU is not a contract. Does the conclusion follow?
- Yes, the conclusion follows (Correct answer)
- No, the conclusion does not follow
- The conclusion is possibly true
- More information is needed
Correct answer: Yes, the conclusion follows
If all contracts require two parties and this MOU lacks two-party signatures, it deductively cannot be a contract.
Question 2: Premise: No employee who is on probation may approve expenditures. Premise: Maria is on probation. Conclusion: Maria cannot approve expenditures. Does the conclusion follow?
- No, because Maria may have a special exemption
- Yes, the conclusion follows necessarily (Correct answer)
- The conclusion is uncertain without HR policy details
- Only if her manager also agrees
Correct answer: Yes, the conclusion follows necessarily
The universal negative premise combined with Maria's membership in that group makes the conclusion deductively certain.
Question 3: Premise: Every merger requires board approval. Premise: The acquisition of Company X received board approval. Conclusion: The acquisition of Company X is a merger. Does the conclusion follow?
- Yes, because board approval confirms it is a merger
- No, the conclusion does not follow (Correct answer)
- Only if the board voted unanimously
- Yes, because all acquisitions are mergers
Correct answer: No, the conclusion does not follow
Board approval is necessary for mergers but may also apply to other actions; you cannot reverse the conditional.
Question 4: Premise: If a study has a control group, its findings are more reliable. Premise: Study Z does not have a control group. Conclusion: Study Z's findings are not reliable. Does the conclusion follow?
- Yes, lack of a control group always makes findings unreliable
- No, the conclusion does not follow (Correct answer)
- Only if the sample size is small
- Yes, because the premise is universal
Correct answer: No, the conclusion does not follow
The premise says a control group increases reliability, not that without one the study is necessarily unreliable.
Question 5: Premise: All managers in Department A received a performance bonus. Premise: Leon received a performance bonus. Conclusion: Leon is a manager in Department A. Does the conclusion follow?
- Yes, because only Department A managers get bonuses
- No, the conclusion does not follow (Correct answer)
- Yes, if Department A is the only department
- Only if Leon's name is on the bonus list
Correct answer: No, the conclusion does not follow
The bonus could have been received for reasons other than being a Department A manager; the premises do not rule that out.
Question 6: Premise: Whenever production costs exceed revenue, the company operates at a loss. Premise: This quarter, production costs exceeded revenue. Conclusion: The company is operating at a loss this quarter. Does the conclusion follow?
- Only if no other income sources exist
- Yes, the conclusion follows (Correct answer)
- No, because taxes could offset the loss
- Maybe, depending on investor support
Correct answer: Yes, the conclusion follows
The conditional is directly satisfied by the second premise, making the conclusion deductively valid.
Question 7: Premise: No software that has unpatched vulnerabilities may be deployed to production. Premise: Application Beta has unpatched vulnerabilities. Conclusion: Application Beta may be deployed to production after review. Does the conclusion follow?
- Yes, if the review clears it
- Yes, because reviews override policies
- No, the conclusion contradicts the premises (Correct answer)
- Only with management sign-off
Correct answer: No, the conclusion contradicts the premises
The first premise is an absolute prohibition; adding a 'review' step contradicts the stated universal rule.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Applying Deductive Reasoning 4
Premise: All contracts require two parties.
Premise: A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is not signed by two parties in this case.
Conclusion: This MOU is not a contract.
Does the conclusion follow?