Self-study
Conclusion It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by Support rephrasing the statement to read: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.
Translating the Stimulus
Let's start by translating the claim the author calls absurd into a conditional:
Original claim: Whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support, it does not allow.
no gov't support → not allowed
Now let's translate the rephrasing:
Rephrasing: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.
allowed → gov't subsidy
Take the contrapositive of the rephrasing:
no gov't subsidy → not allowed
That's identical to the original claim. So the rephrasing is just a logically equivalent way of stating the same conditional. The author hasn't changed the logic at all. She's just reworded it.
What to Look For
The pattern we need to match has two parts:
1. Claim some conditional statement is absurd.
2. Reword it as a logically equivalent statement (the contrapositive) to highlight the absurdity.
The key test for each answer: translate both the original claim and the rewording into conditionals, and check whether they're logically equivalent. If the rewording changes the logic (flips the direction, introduces a new concept, etc.), it doesn't match the stimulus pattern.
22.
The pattern of reasoning in █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
The claim that ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████ █████████
Let's translate both statements.
Original: Any driver who is not arrested does not break the law.
not arrested → doesn't break law
Rewording: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested.
breaks law → arrested
Is the rewording logically equivalent to the original? Yes. Take the contrapositive of the original by negating both sides and flipping the direction:
not arrested → doesn't break law
contrapositive: breaks law → arrested ✓
The rewording is just the contrapositive of the original, which means it's the same claim in different words. This matches the stimulus pattern exactly: take a conditional, restate it as a logically equivalent conditional, and let the rewording make the absurdity obvious.
b
The claim that ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████
Let's translate both statements.
Original: Any driver who is not arrested does not break the law.
not arrested → doesn't break law
Rewording: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law.
arrested → broke law
Is the rewording logically equivalent to the original? No. It confuses sufficient and necessary conditions of the original statement. The rephrasing should have said "Every driver who has broken the law gets arrested."
c
The notion that █████ █████████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ███████ █ ██████████ ██████
Let's translate both statements.
Original: Every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful.
supported → successful
Rewording: No scientist who is successful is so without a government grant.
successful → supported
Is the rewording logically equivalent to the original? No. The rewording reverses the direction of the conditional. The original says support guarantees success. The rewording says success guarantees you had support. Those are different claims. The rephrasing should have said "Every scientist who isn't successful is not supported by a government grant."
d
The notion that █████ █████████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ ████████████ ███████ ████ ██ ███████████
Let's translate both statements.
Original: Every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful.
supported → successful
Rewording: No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful.
not supported (lacking support) → not successful
Is the rewording logically equivalent to the original? It might look like it at first, because both sides got negated. But negating both sides without flipping the direction does not produce a contrapositive. The contrapositive negates both sides and flips the arrow. (D) only negates both sides. That's the difference. The original says that having support guarantees success; (D)'s rewording says that lacking support guarantees no success. Those aren't the same thing. A scientist could lack a government grant and still succeed.
e
The notion that █████ █████████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ███████ █ ██████████ ██████
Let's translate both statements.
Original: Every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful.
supported → successful
Rewording: No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant.
does research → has government grant
The rewording introduces an entirely new concept ("allowed to do research") that has nothing to do with the original claim about success. The original is about support implying success. The rewording is about research requiring a grant. These aren't two ways of saying the same thing.