Applying Deductive Reasoning Flashcards
6 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 6 Applying Deductive Reasoning flashcards as text
All hiring managers who use structured interviews achieve better diversity outcomes. No one on the current panel uses structured interviews. What follows?
Answer: No one on the current panel achieves better diversity outcomes via structured interviews.
Since the benefit is conditional on using structured interviews and no one does, no one gains that specific benefit.
If reasoning test scores predict job performance, then hiring based on such scores is justified. Reasoning test scores do predict job performance. Therefore:
Answer: Hiring based on reasoning test scores is justified.
This is modus ponens: if P then Q; P is true; therefore Q.
Every logical argument that is valid and has true premises must have a true conclusion. Argument X is valid and its premises are true. What follows?
Answer: Argument X has a true conclusion.
By definition of deductive validity with true premises, the conclusion must be true.
Either the data is corrupted or the analysis software has a bug. The data has been verified as uncorrupted. What must follow?
Answer: The analysis software has a bug.
Disjunctive syllogism eliminates the first option, leaving the second as the necessary conclusion.
All passages in the Watson-Glaser test are followed by statements to be evaluated. Passage 7 is in the Watson-Glaser test. What follows necessarily?
Answer: Passage 7 is followed by statements to be evaluated.
The universal rule applies directly to Passage 7 as a member of the set.
No valid deductive conclusion goes beyond the information given in the premises. A conclusion that introduces entirely new information was drawn from two premises. What must be true?
Answer: The conclusion is not a valid deductive conclusion.
Since valid deduction never exceeds the premises, a conclusion with new information violates the rule and is invalid deductively.