In 1996, all ResearchTech

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match4% picked this

   Legal restrictions on consumer purchases have a variety of aims; for example, some are paternalistic, and others are designed to protect civil liberties. Ordinance

   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%
2. B

   Correct82% picked this

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

   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%
3. C

   Weak Premise Match2% picked this

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

   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%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   Legal restrictions on consumer purchases are either paternalistic or designed to protect civil liberties. All ordinances passed in 1993 are paternalistic. Since Ordinance 304

   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%
5. E

   Weaker Premise Match8% picked this

   Ordinance 304 should be exercised only in order to protect civil liberties or to protect consumers from self-harm. The mayor's last exercise of Ordinance

   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%