City Ordinance 402 states: "A restaurant may obtain an outdoor seating permit only if it has a noise abatement plan approved by the council AND provides wheelchair-accessible restrooms. However, restaurants located in historic districts are exempt from the restroom requirement provided they submit a structural impossibility affidavit."
Based strictly on Ordinance 402, which of the following is a valid deduction?
C
Step-by-Step Solution
Key idea: This is a Necessary Condition with Exception problem. It tests precise translation of "only if" and exception clauses into formal logic.
Step 1: Translate the Main Rule.
"Permit ONLY IF (Noise Plan AND Accessible Restroom)."
Logic: Permit (Noise AND Restroom).
Contrapositive: (Not Noise OR Not Restroom) Not Permit.
Step 2: Translate the Exception.
"Historic District AND Affidavit Exempt from Restroom."
Modified Rule for Historic+Affidavit: Permit Noise. (Restroom condition waived).
Step 3: Evaluate Option C.
Context: Outside Historic District.
Applicable Rule: Standard Rule (No exemption available).
Condition: Not Accessible Restroom.
Application: Since (Not Restroom) is true, the conjunction (Noise AND Restroom) is false.
Result: By contrapositive, Not Permit.
Validity: Strictly follows.
Step 4: Eliminate Others.
A: Affirms the consequent. Having requirements met doesn't guarantee permit (there could be other unstated reqs, or discretionary denial). "Only if" does not equal "If".
B: Historic district restaurant could have submitted the affidavit. If so, they might get the permit despite no restrooms. We lack info on the affidavit.
D: Exemption applies only to the restroom requirement. Noise abatement remains mandatory. Scope creep.
Answer: C