Reading comp PrepTest 137 · Section 1 · Question 19

Incorrect. The initial premise here isn't an either/or statement—it presents two examples of a broader statement, but that doesn't guarantee that everything that meets the criteria must fall into one of these two conditions.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
RT project in Ô96 → Funded by government OR Funded by corporation
Gilman Survey: RT project in Ô96 AND not Funded by government
Therefore - Gilman Survey: Funded by corporation

Answer Anticipation:
This Parallel Reasoning question heavily features conditional logic, so we should look for an answer that matches up with it:

A → B OR C
D: A AND not B
Therefore - D: C

So we need an answer that establishes one of two things must be true in a certain situation, and then one of those two is ruled out in the situation, allowing the other to be concluded.

Answer Explanation:
Legal restriction on consumer purchase → Paternalist OR Protect civil liberties
O304: Legal restriction on consumer purchase AND not Paternalistic
Therefore - O304: Protect civil liberties
This answer has the same structure as the stimulus, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Many people taking the LSAT hate conditional logic, but it's something that you can learn through memorization and practice and apply following a set of rules that don't change. This will lead to correct answers faster than the average test taker. Make sure you're on the right side of that average!

Incorrect. This answer never establishes that O304 is a legal restriction on consumer purchases, so the conditional doesn't necessarily apply and thus this argument is flawed (and not parallel).

Incorrect. This answer has a second conditional premise ("All ordinances . . . "), so it's not parallel. This answer also features an illegal reversal.

Incorrect. This answer jumps from the situations under which O304 should be exercised to a situation where it was exercised. That's a jump, and therefore this argument is also flawed and not parallel with the stimulus.