Formal Logic C

1. If the novel were successful, it would be produced as a movie or adapted as a theatre script.
However, this novel is not successful, therefore, we must conclude that it will neither become a
movie nor will it be adapted as a theatre script.
The arguments reasoning is flawed because the argument:
A. fails to draw the conclusion that the novel will not both be produced as a movie and be
adapted as a theatre script, rather than that it will do neither
B. fails to explain in exactly what way the novel is unsuccessful
C. equates the novels aesthetic worth with its commercial success
D. presumes, without providing justification, that there are no further avenues for the novel other
than production as a movie or adaptation as a theatre script
E. fails to recognize that the novels not satisfying one sufficient condition does not preclude its
satisfying a different sufficient condition for production as a movie or adaptation as a theatre
script.
2. If the price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase, the Coffee Shoppe will have to
increase its prices. In that case, either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or
its coffee sales will decrease. But selling noncoffee products will decrease the Coffee Shoppes
overall profitability. Moreover, the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability
only if its coffee sales do not decrease.
Which one of the following statements follows logically from the statements above?
A. If the Coffee Shoppes overall profitability decreases, the price it pays for coffee beans will
have continued to increase.
B. If the Coffee Shoppes overall profitability decreases, either it will have begun selling
noncoffee products or its coffee sales will have decreased.
C. The Coffee Shoppes overall profitability will decrease if the price it pays for coffee beans
continues to increase.
D. The price it pays for coffee beans cannot decrease without the Coffee Shoppes overall
profitability also decreasing.
E. Either the price it pays for coffee beans will continue to increase or the Coffee Shoppes
coffee sales will increase.
3. Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There
are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive
societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a
remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects.
The reasoning in the political scientists argument is flawed because it
A. confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient to bring
it about
B. fails to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a
society to become more democratic
C. appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made

D. overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary
or sufficient by itself to produce it
E. bases its historical case on a personal point of view
4. The ancient Romans understood the principles of water power very well, and in some outlying
parts of their empire they made extensive and excellent use of water as an energy source. This
makes it all the more striking that the Romans made do without water power in regions
dominated by large cities.
Which one of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the difference
described above in the Romans use of water power?
A. The ancient Romans were adept at constructing and maintaining aqueducts that could carry
quantities of water sufficient to supply large cities over considerable distances.
B. In the areas in which water power was not used, water flow in rivers and streams was
substantial throughout the year but nevertheless exhibited some seasonal variation.
C. Water power was relatively vulnerable to sabotage, but any damage could be quickly and
inexpensively repaired.
D. In most areas to which the use of water power was not extended, other, more traditional
sources of energy continued to be used.
E. In heavily populated areas the introduction of water power would have been certain to cause
social unrest by depriving large numbers of people of their livelihood.
5. Lou observes that if flight 409 is canceled, then the manager could not possibly arrive in time
for the meeting. But the flight was not canceled. Therefore, Lou concludes, the manager will
certainly be on time. Evelyn replies that even if Lou's premises are true, his argument is
fallacious. And therefore, she adds, the manager will not arrive on time after all.
Which of the following is the strongest thing that we can properly say about this discussion?
A. Evelyn is mistaken in thinking Lou's argument to be fallacious, and so her own conclusion is
unwarranted.
B. Evelyn is right about Lou's argument, but nevertheless her own conclusion is unwarranted.
C. Since Evelyn is right about Lou's argument, her own conclusion is well supported.
D. Since Evelyn is mistaken about Lou's argument, her own conclusion must be false.
E. Evelyn is right about Lou's argument, but nevertheless her own conclusion is false.
6. In a certain mythical community, politicians never tell the truth, and non-politicians always
tell the truth. A stranger meets three natives and asks the first of them, "Are you a politician?
The first native answers the question. The second native then reports that the first native denied
being a politician. The third native says that the first native is a politician.
A. The first and second natives are politicians.
B. The second native is a politician.
C. Two of the natives are non-politicians.
D. Only the first is a politician.
E. There are not enough information to draw any conclusion.

The first native can only deny being a politician. If native #1 is a politician, he would lie & say that he
is not. And if Native #1 is not a politician, he would tell the truth and say No to the question.
Therefore, the only answer Native #1 can give to the question is NO.
Knowing this, Native #2 is not a politician because he reported that Native #1 denied being a
politician which we know now to be true.
So, Native #2 -Non Politician
Native #1 -still not sure, can be either
Native #3 - said that Native # 1 is a politician & therefore lying.
If Native #3 is a politician - Native #1 is not a politician.
If Native #3 is not a politician, Native #1 is a politician.
Therefore there are 2 non-politicians and 1 politician. You only asked how many, so i don't need to
identify who is the Politician between Native #1 or #3.