Firefighter

An analogy compares two pairs of words that share the same relationship: A is to B as C is to D. The method is always the same. First, name the relationship in the first pair in a short sentence ("a nozzle is part of a hose"). Then find the answer pair that fits the same sentence ("a blade is part of an axe"). If more than one choice fits, make your sentence more specific.

➜

➜

➜

Nozzle : hose

"A nozzle is part of a hose"

"A blade is part of an axe"

Part first, whole second in both

pairs

Relationship	Example	BridgeSentence
Parttowhole	Nozzleistohoseasbladeistoaxe	A ispartofa ___ ___
Causeandeffect	Sparkistofireasleakistoflood	A cancausea ___ ___
Tooltofunction	Extinguisheristosuppressasladderistoclimb	A isusedto ___ ___
Degreeorintensity	Warmistohotasdampistosoaked	A isamilderformof ___ ___
Categorymembership	Engineistoapparatusascaptainistoofficer	A isonekindof ___ ___
Performertoaction	Paramedicistotreatasinvestigatoristoanalyze	A characteristicallydoes ___ ___
Objectto	Sirenistoloudassmokeistovisible	A istypically ___ ___
characteristic
Objecttolocation	Engineistostationaspatientistohospital	A isusuallyfoundata ___ ___
Sequence	Alarmistoresponseastrainingistocompetence	A comesbeforeandleadsto ___ ___
Agenttoobject	Firefighteristofireasphysicianistoillness	A workstoovercome ___ ___
Proceduretowhatit	Ventilationistosmokeasdrainageistowater	removes ___ ___
removes
Rankprogression	Lieutenantistocaptainascaptainistobattalionchief	A ranksjustbelowa ___ ___

Fire-service analogies often pair equipment with the function it provides: SCBA is to breathing as turnout gear is to protection. In a degree analogy, both pairs must describe the same quality at a lesser and a greater strength, in the same order. "Warm : hot" moves from lesser to greater heat, so "damp : soaked" (lesser to greater wetness) matches, while "soaked : damp" reverses the order and does not.

Reversed pairs are the most common trap. "Hose is to nozzle" is whole-to-part, not part-to-whole. Also beware of choices that share a topic with the first pair (other fire words) but not its relationship; the relationship is all that matters.

(B) head protection. Bridge sentence: "An SCBA provides air supply; a helmet provides head protection." Firefighter is the user, station is a location, and chin strap is a part.

Deductive reasoning moves from general premises to a specific conclusion. If the premises are true and the reasoning is valid, the conclusion must be true; it cannot be false. The classic form is the syllogism: a major premise (a general rule), a minor premise (a specific case), and a conclusion.

Major premise: All firefighters must complete annual physical exams.

Minor premise: Johnson is a firefighter.

Conclusion: Johnson must complete annual physical exams.

Valid: the conclusion applies the general rule to a case that falls under it, and adds nothing the premises do not state.

To evaluate any conclusion, ask whether it necessarily follows from the statements given, using no outside information. A valid conclusion restates what the premises contain or combines them logically. An invalid conclusion introduces new information, reverses a conditional relationship, or overgeneralizes beyond the stated scope ("all," "always," or "never" when the premises say "some" or "usually").

Conditional Statements

A conditional statement has an if-then structure: If P, then Q. P is the condition (the hypothesis) and Q is the result (the conclusion). Three related statements can be formed from any conditional by reversing its parts, negating them, or both. Only one of them, the contrapositive, always means the same thing as the original.

Consider why the converse fails. The statement "If there is smoke, there is fire" says nothing about fires that produce little visible smoke, so "If there is fire, there is smoke" is not guaranteed by it. The contrapositive holds because if there were no fire but there were smoke, the original statement would be broken. Two reasoning errors follow directly from these forms, and exam distractors use both:

"Only if" reverses the direction. "A member may drive the apparatus only if certified" means "If a member drives the apparatus, then the member is certified." It does not mean every certified member drives.

Drawing Conclusions and Evaluating Arguments

Many exam items give several statements and ask which conclusion is valid, or which cannot be determined. Treat the statements as the only facts in the world. Combine them carefully, and reject any choice that needs information they do not provide, however reasonable it sounds.

1. All personnel assigned to Rescue Squad 1 have completed rope rescue certification.

2. Firefighter Adams is assigned to Rescue Squad 1.

3. Rope rescue certification requires 40 hours of training.

Work through the combinations below before reading the answer choices.

ProposedConclusion	Verdict	Reason
Adamshascompletedroperescuecertification .	Valid	Followsfromstatements1and2combined
Adamshascompletedatleast40hoursofroperescue	Valid	Followsfromallthreestatementscombined
training .
Adamsisthemostexperiencedroperescuetechnician .	Invalid	Nothingsupportsacomparison;othermembers
		mayhavemoreexperience
EveryonewithroperescuecertificationisonRescue	Invalid	Reversesstatement1(theconverse)
Squad1 .
Adamscompletedcertificationlastyear .	Cannotbe	Nostatementgivesadate
	determined

Questions that ask what cannot be determined test whether you recognize the limits of the information. From the Adams statements you cannot tell when Adams was certified, how many people are on Rescue Squad 1, whether Adams holds other certifications, or how many years Adams has served. Avoid any choice that "seems likely" but is not directly supported.

Evaluating Arguments

An argument consists of premises (supporting statements) and a conclusion (the claim they support). A strong argument has relevant premises that adequately support the conclusion. A weak argument relies on irrelevant information, insufficient evidence, or a logical fallacy, a pattern of reasoning that looks persuasive but does not hold up.

Fallacy	Error	Example	WhyItFails
Hastygeneralization	Abroadconclusionfromtoofew	"TwofirefightersfromStation5werelate;	Twocasescannot
	examples	Station5hasdisciplineproblems" .	representawhole
			station
Falsecause	Treatingasequenceorcorrelation	"Incidentsincreasedafterthenewchief	Population weather or , ,
	asproofofcausation	arrived;thenewchiefcausedthe	reportingchangesmay
		increase" .	explainit
Appealtoauthority	Citingsomeonewhoisnotan	"Themayorsaysthisequipmentisbest so ,	Themayormaylack
	expertonthequestion	itmustbebest" .	technicalexpertise

Commonfallacies(Continued)

Fallacy	Error	Example	WhyItFails
Adhominem	Attackingthepersoninsteadofthe	"OfficerSmith'sproposalshouldbe	Apastdemotionsays
	argument	rejectedbecausehewasoncedemoted" .	nothingaboutthe
			proposal'smerit
Falsedilemma	Presentingonlytwooptionswhen	"Eitherweincreasestaffingorresponse	Stationplacement ,
	moreexist	timeswillsuffer" .	dispatch orscheduling ,
			changesareother
			options

When asked which statement most weakens an argument, look for a choice that offers another explanation or shows the evidence is unrepresentative. When asked which most strengthens it, look for a choice that rules out another explanation.