PrepTest 67, Section 2, Question 19
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 304 does not protect civil liberties, so it must have been intended to protect consumers from self-harm.
0 Comments