Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S2 · Q19 In 1996, all ResearchTech

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

In 1996, all ResearchTech projects were funded either by the government or by private corporations.

Evidence

In '96, all RT projects were during time X, funded by govt or private All A's were contractors B or C

The GS, was an RT project this thing was an in '96, and was not funded A during time X, by govt and was not B.

Conclusion

Thus GS was funded by this thing was A private contractors

Evaluate / Goal

We need a premise that sets out a conditional with an either / or outcome. If you fit a certain set of criteria, then you're X or Y. Then we need to hear that something fits that criteria, but isn't X. Then we conclude that this thing must be Y.

19.

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

  1. Legal restrictions on consumer purchases

    Bad Premise Match

    We need an "either/or" premise in order to match the original. This says that legal restrictions have a variety of aims. That could be more than two things. Thus, ruling out civil liberties doesn't guarantee that it must be paternalistic.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    Legal restrictions on consumer purchases,

    Why this is right

    This gives us the either/or conditional: Legal restriction on → Paternalistic or PCL consumer purchases It tells us about a thing, Ordinance 304, that meets the criteria for that rule and is not one of those two things (not paternalistic). It then concludes that this thing must be the other option (PCL).

    Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    82% picked this

  3. Ordinance 304 is not paternalistic.

    Weak Premise Match

    This is super close. The only thing this is missing is clarification that Ordinance 304 meets the criteria of the rule. Is Ordinance 304 a legal restriction on consumer purchases? We don't know. The original argument and correct answer (B) both made it explicit that the specific thing we're concluding about (Gilman Survey / Ordinance 304) belongs to the category of things talked about in the trigger of the conditional rule ('96 RT Project / legal restriction on consumer purchases).

    2% picked this

  4. Legal restrictions on consumer purchases

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The premises do give us a conditional with an either / or outcome: it's either paternalistic or designed to protect civil liberties. The argument should be ruling out one of them and concluding the other. But the conclusion isn't about either of these 2 options. It's about the trigger for the either/or rule.

    4% picked this

  5. Ordinance 304 should be exercised

    Weaker Premise Match

    This is super close. The logical structure is there: things in category X are either Y or Z. This thing is from category X, but it wasn't Y. Thus it must have been Z. But the language slipped from "intent" to "result". If the last sentence said, "But mayor's last use of O-304 was not intended to protect civil liberties, so it much have been intended to protect consumers", then it would be correct. The rule was written in the language of intent, not results: "in order to protect civil liberties or consumers". Thus, in order to rule out one of those options, we need to know "it was not exercised in order to do X", but we're being told "when it was last exercised, it didn't do X" Even if my new song "Kelly's Swelly" didn't melt Kelly's heart, I still may have written that song in order to melt Kelly's heart.

    8% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free