QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The Gilman survey must have been funded by private corporations.
REASONING: All ResarchTech projects were funded by the government or private corporations. The Gilman survey was a ResearchTech project, and it wasn’t funded by the government.
ANALYSIS: This is a good argument. It says everything that falls into a certain category is either A or B. Since this particular thing is in the category and isn’t option A, it must be option B.
All the answer choices use the same language. On this type of question, it’s extra important you understand the argument’s structure, since that’s the only way to distinguish answer choices.
- Bad argument. This doesn’t say that legal restriction are only paternalistic or designed to protect civil liberties.
- CORRECT. Ordinance 304 is in the group of laws that are either paternalistic or protect civil liberties. Since it isn’t paternalistic, it must protect civil liberties.
- Close, but we’re not told whether Ordinance 304 is a legal restriction on consumer purchases.
- This argument correctly proves that Ordinance 304 is a legal restriction on consumer purchases. But this argument doesn’t say which of the two alternatives it is.
- This is a bad argument. It’s possible the mayor used Ordinance 304 for a purpose he shouldn’t have used it for.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly