Step 1: Write the statement using simple symbols.
Let G(x) mean "x is a German philosopher" and I(x) mean "x is an idealist". The given statement becomes: for every x that is not Marx, G(x) implies I(x). In words, being a German philosopher, other than Marx, guarantees being an idealist.
Step 2: Note what this symbolic form does NOT say.
It does not say I(x) implies G(x) for non-Marx cases, since that would wrongly force every idealist to be a German philosopher. It also does not say anything about Marx's truth values for G or I directly, since Marx is simply outside the scope of the "for every x that is not Marx" clause.
Step 3: Match each option to this symbolic reading.
Option (1) needs I(x) implies G(x) for non-Marx x, the reverse of what is given, so it fails. Option (2) needs to know Marx's nationality and also needs I(x) implies G(x), so it fails for the same reason as (1), plus an extra unsupported nationality claim. Option (4) needs to know the actual truth values G(Marx) and I(Marx), which the statement never specifies, so it fails too.
Step 4: Confirm option (3) fits.
Option (3) reads: for x not Marx, if x is German and I(x), then x is a philosopher. This uses the same "excluding Marx" scope as the original statement and only talks about people covered by that scope, without claiming anything new about idealists outside Germany or about Marx's specific status.
Step 5: Rule out the rest by process of elimination.
Since (1), (2) and (4) each require information beyond the original statement, and (3) requires nothing beyond it, (3) is the safest and most properly inferred choice.
Option (3) is the statement most properly inferred from the given premise about German philosophers and Marx.