PrepTest 137, Section 2, Question 19
In 1996, all ResearchTech projects were funded either(33 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- ALegal restrictions on(38 more words not shown)
- BLegal restrictions on(24 more words not shown)
- COrdinance 304 is(30 more words not shown)
- DLegal restrictions on(34 more words not shown)
- EOrdinance 304 should(38 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
There are only two funding possibilities for these projects in 1996. The Gilman Survey belongs to that group, and government funding is ruled out. Private corporations must therefore have funded it. That reasoning works.
The year matters because it places the survey within the rule's scope. We haven't been told who funded projects in other years. But within the stated group, no third funding source is left open.
What we’re looking for
To match the argument, look for a rule with two exhaustive alternatives, a particular case covered by the rule, and the elimination of one alternative. The other must remain. The answer doesn't need a year or the same sentence order; it needs those relationships.
Working the answers
- A
‘For example’ leaves other aims open. Paternalism and protecting civil liberties are two examples of the variety of purposes restrictions can serve, not the only possible purposes. Ruling out civil-liberties protection therefore doesn't force the conclusion that the ordinance is paternalistic. Our funding argument explicitly limits the possibilities to two.
- BCorrect
Legal restrictions on consumer purchases correspond to ResearchTech projects covered by the funding rule. Ordinance 304 is expressly included in that category, just as the Gilman Survey is included in the relevant project group.
The two alternatives are paternalism and protecting civil liberties. The ordinance isn't paternalistic, so it must protect civil liberties. That matches excluding government funding and concluding that the remaining source, private corporations, supplied the money.
- C
Starting with the statement about Ordinance 304 isn't a problem; the premises could appear in a different order. But the conclusion has the wrong result. If the ordinance falls within the two-category rule and isn't paternalistic, it should protect the environment, not fail to protect it. C also never explicitly establishes that this ordinance is a restriction on consumer purchases. It misses both the needed membership and the correct elimination step.
- D
Being passed in 1993 establishes that the ordinance is paternalistic. It doesn't establish that it restricts consumer purchases. The opening rule says consumer restrictions have one of two purposes; it doesn't say every paternalistic ordinance is a consumer restriction. D moves from a feature to membership in the group instead of using established membership to eliminate one alternative.
- E
A rule about how the ordinance should be used doesn't establish that the mayor followed it. The mayor might have used it for some other purpose. Also, failing to protect civil liberties doesn't necessarily establish that protecting them wasn't the intention. Our argument concerns actual funding alternatives and rules one out; E moves from a standard and an outcome to a claim about the mayor's intention.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.