Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Premise: All engineers at TechCorp hold advanced degrees. Premise: Marcus works at TechCorp as an engineer. Conclusion: Marcus holds an advanced degree. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — Marcus must hold an advanced degree. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion does not follow — Marcus may have been grandfathered in without a degree.
- The conclusion does not follow — not all engineers are equal.
- The conclusion follows only if Marcus has been employed for more than one year.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — Marcus must hold an advanced degree.
Because all engineers at TechCorp hold advanced degrees and Marcus is an engineer there, it necessarily follows that Marcus holds an advanced degree.
Question 2: Premise: No reptiles are warm-blooded. Premise: A gecko is a reptile. Conclusion: A gecko is not warm-blooded. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion does not follow — some geckos could be exceptions.
- The conclusion follows — the two premises together necessitate it. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only if geckos are cold-blooded by definition.
- The conclusion does not follow — the premises concern all reptiles, not geckos specifically.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — the two premises together necessitate it.
Since no reptiles are warm-blooded and a gecko is a reptile, it necessarily follows that the gecko is not warm-blooded.
Question 3: Premise: All students who pass the entrance exam are admitted. Premise: Sofia did not pass the entrance exam. Conclusion: Sofia was not admitted. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — failing the exam means rejection.
- The conclusion does not follow — Sofia could have been admitted through another route. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only if Sofia applied during the current cycle.
- The conclusion does not follow — the exam is optional.
Correct answer: The conclusion does not follow — Sofia could have been admitted through another route.
The premise states passing guarantees admission, but does not state that passing is the only path to admission, so Sofia may still have been admitted another way.
Question 4: Premise: Every member of the committee voted in favor of the proposal. Premise: Dr. Patel is a member of the committee. Conclusion: Dr. Patel voted in favor of the proposal. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion does not follow — Dr. Patel may have abstained.
- The conclusion follows — the universal statement covers every member including Dr. Patel. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only if Dr. Patel attended the meeting.
- The conclusion does not follow — voting records are confidential.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — the universal statement covers every member including Dr. Patel.
Because every committee member voted in favor and Dr. Patel is a committee member, it necessarily follows that Dr. Patel voted in favor.
Question 5: Premise: Some lawyers are also licensed pilots. Premise: All licensed pilots must pass annual medical exams. Conclusion: Some lawyers must pass annual medical exams. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion does not follow — pilots and lawyers have separate requirements.
- The conclusion follows — those lawyers who are pilots must pass the medical exam. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion does not follow — 'some' is too vague to draw any conclusion.
- The conclusion follows only if all lawyers are also pilots.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — those lawyers who are pilots must pass the medical exam.
The lawyers who are licensed pilots fall under the rule requiring annual medical exams, so at least some lawyers (those who are pilots) must pass them.
Question 6: Premise: If a country's inflation rate exceeds 10%, the central bank raises interest rates. Premise: Country X's inflation rate is currently 7%. Conclusion: Country X's central bank has not raised interest rates. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — 7% is below the 10% threshold.
- The conclusion does not follow — the bank may have raised rates for other reasons. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only if no other economic factors are present.
- The conclusion does not follow — 7% is close enough to 10% to trigger action.
Correct answer: The conclusion does not follow — the bank may have raised rates for other reasons.
The premise only states one sufficient condition (inflation above 10%) for raising rates; other triggers may exist, so the bank could have raised rates for other reasons.
Question 7: Premise: All mammals breathe air. Premise: Dolphins are mammals. Conclusion: Dolphins breathe air. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion does not follow — dolphins live underwater.
- The conclusion follows — it is a direct application of the universal rule to dolphins. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only if dolphins surface regularly.
- The conclusion does not follow — aquatic mammals are a separate category.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — it is a direct application of the universal rule to dolphins.
All mammals breathe air and dolphins are mammals, so it necessarily follows that dolphins breathe air regardless of their habitat.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions 2
Premise: All engineers at TechCorp hold advanced degrees.
Premise: Marcus works at TechCorp as an engineer.
Conclusion: Marcus holds an advanced degree.
Is this conclusion valid?