In 1996, all ResearchTech projects were funded either by the government or by private corporations. The Gilman Survey, a ResearchTech project, was not funded by the government but was conducted in 1996. It must therefore have been funded by private corporations.


Which one of the following is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?


(A) Legal restrictions on consumer purchases have a variety of aims; for example, some are paternalistic, and others are designed to protect civil liberties. Ordinance 304, a legal restriction on alcohol sales, does not protect civil liberties. It must therefore be paternalistic.


(B) Legal restrictions on consumer purchases, such as Ordinance 304, are either paternalistic or protect civil liberties. Ordinance 304 is not paternalistic, so it must protect civil liberties.


(C) Ordinance 304 is not paternalistic. Since all legal restrictions on consumer purchases are either paternalistic or designed to protect the environment, the purpose of Ordinance 304 must not be to protect the environment.


(D) Legal restrictions on consumer purchases are either paternalistic or designed to protect civil liberties. All ordinances passed in 1993 are paternalistic. Since Ordinance 304 was passed in 1993, it must be a legal restriction on consumer purchases.


(E) Ordinance 304 should be exercised only in order to protect civil liberties or to protect consumers from self-harm. They mayor's last exercise of Ordinance 304 does not protect civil liberties, so it must have been intended to protect consumers from self-harm.


Pre-thinking:


In 1996, all ResearchTech projects were funded either by the government or by private corporations. The Gilman Survey, a ResearchTech project, was not funded by the government but was conducted in 1996. It must therefore have been funded by private corporations.


This is of the form:


If X (1996 & ResearchTech projects), then Y (funded by the government) or Z (funded by private corporations)


X is true (Gilman Survey, a ResearchTech project, conducted in 1996), Y is false (not funded by the government) --> Z must be true (funded by private corporations).


Let us examine the answer options to spot the same structure:


(A) Legal restrictions on consumer purchases have a variety of aims; for example, some are paternalistic, and others are designed to protect civil liberties. Ordinance 304, a legal restriction on alcohol sales, does not protect civil liberties. It must therefore be paternalistic. The passage gives an exhaustive list of possibilities (if X then definitely Y or Z). This option only gives a partial set ("variety of aims...for example..."). Eliminate.


(B) Legal restrictions on consumer purchases, such as Ordinance 304, are either paternalistic or protect civil liberties. Ordinance 304 is not paternalistic, so it must protect civil liberties. If X (legal restrictions) then Y (paternalistic) or Z (protect civil liberties). X is true (Ordinance 304 is a legal restriction), Y is false (not paternalistic) --> Z must be true (must protect civil liberties). Correct answer.


(C) Ordinance 304 is not paternalistic. Since all legal restrictions on consumer purchases are either paternalistic or designed to protect the environment, the purpose of Ordinance 304 must not be to protect the environment. If X (legal restrictions) then Y (paternalistic) or Z (protect the environment). X is true (Ordinance 304, I am assuming here, is a legal restriction - this needs to be explicitly mentioned. If it is not, we can reject the option here itself), Y is false (not paternalistic) --> Z must be false (must not be to protect the environment). Eliminate.


(D) Legal restrictions on consumer purchases are either paternalistic or designed to protect civil liberties. All ordinances passed in 1993 are paternalistic. Since Ordinance 304 was passed in 1993, it must be a legal restriction on consumer purchases. If X (legal restrictions) then Y (paternalistic) or Z (protect civil liberties). Y is true (since Ordinance 304 was passed in 1993) --> X must be true (must be a legal restriction). Eliminate.


(E) Ordinance 304 should be exercised only in order to protect civil liberties or to protect consumers from self-harm. They mayor's last exercise of Ordinance 304 does not protect civil liberties, so it must have been intended to protect consumers from self-harm. This is close, but we do not have a clean, "must be true" scenario to start off with. The option only says Ordinance 304 should only be exercised for a specific purposes, not that it always is. We can hence eliminate this option since it does not replicate the passage.