Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Premise: Only employees with security clearance may access Level 3 files. Premise: Janelle accessed Level 3 files. Conclusion: Janelle has security clearance. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion does not follow — Janelle may have accessed them accidentally.
- The conclusion does not follow — security systems can be bypassed.
- The conclusion follows — only cleared employees can access Level 3 files, so Janelle must be cleared. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only if Janelle is a full-time employee.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — only cleared employees can access Level 3 files, so Janelle must be cleared.
Since access to Level 3 files is restricted exclusively to cleared employees and Janelle accessed them, she must have clearance.
Question 2: Premise: No first-year students are eligible for the research grant. Premise: All members of the honors program are eligible for the research grant. Conclusion: No first-year students are members of the honors program. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — the two premises together exclude first-year students from the honors program. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion does not follow — honors program membership is determined separately.
- The conclusion follows only during the current academic year.
- The conclusion does not follow — first-year students could be in honors without being eligible yet.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — the two premises together exclude first-year students from the honors program.
If all honors members are grant-eligible and no first-year student is grant-eligible, then no first-year student can be an honors member.
Question 3: Premise: If a patient takes medication Z, their symptoms will subside within 48 hours. Premise: Patient A's symptoms subsided within 48 hours. Conclusion: Patient A took medication Z. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — the timeline matches the medication exactly.
- The conclusion does not follow — symptoms can subside for reasons other than medication Z. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows if the patient reported taking the medication.
- The conclusion follows only if no other medication was prescribed.
Correct answer: The conclusion does not follow — symptoms can subside for reasons other than medication Z.
The premise establishes that medication Z is sufficient to cause symptom relief, not that it is the only way symptoms subside.
Question 4: Premise: All fruit in this basket is either an apple or an orange. Premise: This item from the basket is not an apple. Conclusion: This item is an orange. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion does not follow — there may be other fruit not mentioned.
- The conclusion does not follow — the item could be neither.
- The conclusion follows — if it is not an apple and only apples and oranges are present, it must be an orange. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only if the item was randomly selected.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — if it is not an apple and only apples and oranges are present, it must be an orange.
The basket contains only apples and oranges; since the item is not an apple, it must be an orange.
Question 5: Premise: Every player on the varsity team scored at least one goal this season. Premise: Kevin is on the varsity team. Conclusion: Kevin scored more than five goals this season. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — varsity players are expected to score frequently.
- The conclusion does not follow — the premise only guarantees at least one goal, not more than five. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows if Kevin played in every game.
- The conclusion does not follow — Kevin may have been injured.
Correct answer: The conclusion does not follow — the premise only guarantees at least one goal, not more than five.
The premise guarantees at least one goal per player, but says nothing about scoring more than five; that conclusion exceeds what the premises support.
Question 6: Premise: All contracts signed after January 1st are subject to the new tax code. Premise: The Dawson contract was signed on March 15th. Conclusion: The Dawson contract is subject to the new tax code. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — March 15th is after January 1st, satisfying the condition. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion does not follow — only federal contracts are covered.
- The conclusion follows only if the Dawson contract involves taxable income.
- The conclusion does not follow — the exact tax code version matters.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — March 15th is after January 1st, satisfying the condition.
March 15th is after January 1st, so the Dawson contract meets the condition stated in the premise and is subject to the new tax code.
Question 7: Premise: Some scientists are also poets. Premise: All poets appreciate metaphor. Conclusion: All scientists appreciate metaphor. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — scientists are intellectually similar to poets.
- The conclusion does not follow — only the scientists who are poets necessarily appreciate metaphor. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion does not follow — poetry is unrelated to science.
- The conclusion follows if most scientists are poets.
Correct answer: The conclusion does not follow — only the scientists who are poets necessarily appreciate metaphor.
Only the subset of scientists who are poets is covered by the second premise; the conclusion improperly extends it to all scientists.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions 3
Premise: Only employees with security clearance may access Level 3 files.
Premise: Janelle accessed Level 3 files.
Conclusion: Janelle has security clearance.
Is this conclusion valid?