Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: If only conclusion I follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
We are given a necessity condition (“Humans cannot live without atmosphere”) and a factual condition about a location (“the Moon is without atmosphere”). We must deduce which conclusions logically follow without importing extra-world knowledge beyond what is stated.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Use simple propositional reasoning: If humans need X (atmosphere) and place P lacks X, then humans cannot live on P. That yields Conclusion I. Conclusion II (“Earth must have an atmosphere”) might seem true in the real world because humans live on Earth. However, the statement itself provides no premise about humans being on Earth; therefore, within the strict logic of the problem, II introduces an unstated link and does not necessarily follow from the given lines alone.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From “Humans require atmosphere” and “Moon has no atmosphere” → humans cannot live on the Moon → I follows.2) No explicit premise connects humans to Earth or asserts that Earth satisfies the requirement → II does not follow strictly from the given statement.
Verification / Alternative check:
If, hypothetically, humans lived elsewhere (space stations, other planets) the original premises would remain true; hence II is not entailed purely by the text. But regardless of such hypotheticals, I still follows from the necessity and absence on the Moon.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” accepts an unstated Earth-specific premise; “Either” is incorrect because I is compelled while II is not; “Neither” denies a direct logical consequence (I).
Common Pitfalls:
Allowing background knowledge about Earth to slip into the inference set when the puzzle restricts us to the given statements.
Final Answer:
If only conclusion I follows.
Discussion & Comments