Step 1: Restate the given statement in plain logical terms.
The statement says: for any person who is both a German and a philosopher, if that person is not Marx, then that person is an idealist. Marx is the one named exception to this general rule. The statement does not say anything definite about whether Marx is a German philosopher, or whether Marx is or is not an idealist. It only says the general rule is not asserted to cover him.
Step 2: Check option (1).
Option (1) says that, except for Marx, every idealist philosopher must be German. This reverses the direction of the original statement. The original only tells us German philosophers (other than Marx) are idealists; it says nothing about whether idealist philosophers from other countries exist. So option (1) adds an unsupported claim.
Step 3: Check option (2).
Option (2) claims Marx is the only non-German philosopher who is an idealist. This assumes Marx is not German, which is never stated, and it also wrongly restricts all other idealist philosophers to being German, just like option (1). Neither claim is supported by the original statement.
Step 4: Check option (4).
Option (4) states Marx is not an idealist German philosopher. The original statement only exempts Marx from the general rule; it does not assert the rule actually fails for him. Marx being excluded from "all German philosophers, except Marx, are idealists" does not by itself prove Marx is not an idealist German philosopher, it only means this statement makes no claim either way about him. So option (4) overreaches beyond what is given.
Step 5: Check option (3).
Option (3) says that if a German is an idealist, then, provided he or she is not Marx, that person is a philosopher. This mirrors the structure and the same "except for Marx" carve-out used in the original statement, without introducing any new claim about the nationality of idealists in general or about Marx's actual status. Among the four choices, it is the only one that stays within the bounds of what the original statement supports.
Step 6: Conclude.
By eliminating options (1), (2) and (4) for introducing claims not supported by the original statement, option (3) remains the most properly inferred statement.