Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Premise: All members of the study group scored above 80 on the final exam. Premise: No one who scored above 80 failed the course. Conclusion: No member of the study group failed the course. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — chaining the two premises eliminates the possibility of failure for group members. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion does not follow — final exam scores alone don't determine course grades.
- The conclusion follows only for members who attended all sessions.
- The conclusion does not follow — the study group may include students from different sections.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — chaining the two premises eliminates the possibility of failure for group members.
Study group members scored above 80, and no one scoring above 80 failed; therefore, no study group member failed the course.
Question 2: Premise: Some managers are certified accountants. Premise: No certified accountant is unfamiliar with tax law. Conclusion: Some managers are familiar with tax law. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion does not follow — familiarity with tax law depends on experience, not certification.
- The conclusion follows — the managers who are certified accountants must be familiar with tax law. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only if all managers have accounting backgrounds.
- The conclusion does not follow — 'some' is too imprecise to draw conclusions.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — the managers who are certified accountants must be familiar with tax law.
The managers who are certified accountants cannot be unfamiliar with tax law, meaning those managers are familiar with it — so some managers are familiar with tax law.
Question 3: Premise: All traffic violations recorded in Zone B result in fines. Premise: Carlos received a fine. Conclusion: Carlos committed a traffic violation in Zone B. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — fines in Zone B are only for traffic violations.
- The conclusion does not follow — fines can result from violations in other zones or non-traffic offenses. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows if Carlos was stopped in Zone B.
- The conclusion does not follow — the fine amount determines the violation type.
Correct answer: The conclusion does not follow — fines can result from violations in other zones or non-traffic offenses.
The premise establishes that Zone B violations lead to fines, not that fines are exclusively from Zone B violations; Carlos's fine could have another source.
Question 4: Premise: Every student who completed the internship received course credit. Premise: Aisha received course credit. Premise: Aisha completed the internship. Conclusion: Aisha received course credit because of the internship. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — internship completion is the only path to credit.
- The conclusion does not follow — there is no information ruling out other reasons Aisha received credit. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only if Aisha applied for internship credit formally.
- The conclusion does not follow — receiving credit and completing the internship are independent.
Correct answer: The conclusion does not follow — there is no information ruling out other reasons Aisha received credit.
While Aisha completed the internship and received credit, the premises do not exclude other reasons for the credit, so the causal claim cannot be established deductively.
Question 5: Premise: No policy enacted before 2010 applies to digital transactions. Premise: Policy 88-C was enacted in 2008. Conclusion: Policy 88-C does not apply to digital transactions. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion does not follow — Policy 88-C may have been amended after 2010.
- The conclusion follows — 2008 is before 2010, placing it under the universal exclusion. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only for international digital transactions.
- The conclusion does not follow — digital transactions are a modern category.
Correct answer: The conclusion follows — 2008 is before 2010, placing it under the universal exclusion.
Policy 88-C was enacted in 2008 (before 2010), so the universal rule places it in the category of policies that do not apply to digital transactions.
Question 6: Premise: All quadrilaterals have four sides. Premise: A rhombus is a quadrilateral. Premise: A rhombus has four equal sides. Conclusion: All quadrilaterals have four equal sides. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — all quadrilaterals share the rhombus's properties.
- The conclusion does not follow — the equal-side property belongs to rhombuses specifically, not all quadrilaterals. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows only for regular quadrilaterals.
- The conclusion follows because four sides and four equal sides are the same property.
Correct answer: The conclusion does not follow — the equal-side property belongs to rhombuses specifically, not all quadrilaterals.
The premises establish that rhombuses have four equal sides, not all quadrilaterals; other quadrilaterals like rectangles may have unequal side pairs.
Question 7: Premise: Whenever the alarm sounds, the building must be evacuated. Premise: The building is currently being evacuated. Conclusion: The alarm is currently sounding. Is this conclusion valid?
- The conclusion follows — evacuation and the alarm always occur together.
- The conclusion does not follow — evacuations can be ordered for reasons other than the alarm. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion follows if the fire department is present.
- The conclusion follows only during business hours.
Correct answer: The conclusion does not follow — evacuations can be ordered for reasons other than the alarm.
The alarm triggers evacuation, but evacuation can also be ordered by other means; the presence of evacuation does not confirm the alarm is the cause.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions 5
Premise: All members of the study group scored above 80 on the final exam.
Premise: No one who scored above 80 failed the course.
Conclusion: No member of the study group failed the course.
Is this conclusion valid?