Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions 5

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?

Accepted Answer

The conclusion follows — chaining the two premises eliminates the possibility of failure for group members.

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The conclusion follows — the managers who are certified accountants must be familiar with tax law.

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The conclusion does not follow — fines can result from violations in other zones or non-traffic offenses.

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The conclusion does not follow — there is no information ruling out other reasons Aisha received credit.

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The conclusion follows — 2008 is before 2010, placing it under the universal exclusion.

Answer

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.

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Practice Test

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Practice Test

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Drawing Deductive Conclusions 5