Drawing Deductive Conclusions Flashcards
7 cards from real Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Drawing Deductive Conclusions flashcards as text
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.