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

Victoria on September 10, 2020

Hi @mnieslanik,

Happy to help!

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

Remember when diagramming "either X or Y" statements, there are two steps:

1) Pick a variable and make it the necessary condition.

2) Negate the other variable and make it the sufficient condition.

"Either X or Y" means that at least one of X or Y must exist.

Not funded by government --> Funded by private corporation
Not funded by private corporation --> Funded by government

The stimulus takes the existence of the sufficient condition (not funded by government) to conclude the necessary condition (funded by private corporation).

Answer choice (A) is incorrect because it does not pose a choice between only two alternatives. It tells us that legal restrictions on consumer purchases have a variety of aims and then lists two examples of these aims. This is different from the stimulus which provides us with only two options for how the projects were funded.

Answer choice (C) is incorrect because it does not draw a proper conclusion. Legal restrictions are "either paternalistic or designed to protect the environment."

Not paternalistic --> Designed to protect environment
Not designed to protect environment --> Paternalistic

This answer choice takes the sufficient condition to conclude the sufficient condition of the contrapositive, thereby drawing an invalid conclusion. Additionally, we do not learn whether Ordinance 304 is a legal restriction. If not, the conclusion is flawed for an additional reason.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because it uses flawed reasoning and has a different structure from the stimulus.

Legal restrictions --> Paternalistic OR Designed to protect civil liberties
Not paternalistic AND Not designed to protect civil liberties --> Not legal restriction

Ordinance passed in 1993 --> Paternalistic
Not paternalistic --> Not ordinance passed in 1993

We know that Ordinance 304 was passed in 1993. Therefore, it is paternalistic. However, this answer choice then takes the existence of the necessary condition (paternalistic) to conclude the sufficient condition (legal restriction). We know that we cannot work backwards over the arrow; therefore, this conclusion is invalid.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it introduces a principle as opposed to a statement of fact.

Compare these two statements:

Answer choice (E) - X should be used only to do either Y or Z

Stimulus - X was either a result of Y or Z

The stimulus is a statement of fact whereas answer choice (E) is a principle which outlines when Ordinance 304 should be used.

Finally, answer choice (B) is correct because it directly mirrors the reasoning used in the argument.

"Legal restrictions on consumer purchases, such as Ordinance 304, are either paternalistic or protect civil liberties."

Not paternalistic --> Protect civil liberties
Not protect civil liberties --> Paternalistic

Like the stimulus, this answer choice takes the existence of the sufficient condition (not paternalistic) to conclude the necessary condition (protect civil liberties).

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.