Subscription pricing
Hello guys,
Can someone please map out the logic of this argument and show how we can properly infer answer choice B? I am utterly confused :(
Thanks,
Kristen
0
Hello guys,
Can someone please map out the logic of this argument and show how we can properly infer answer choice B? I am utterly confused :(
Thanks,
Kristen
5 comments
@potatocowpower864 I understand why the incorrect answers are wrong, because, under timed conditions I arrived to the correct answer choice through a process of elimination. I just want to understand why the correct answer is correct for a deeper understanding. Which I think I now have. Thanks!
@brownkristen77339
I think this question is a lot easier if approached by eliminating definitely wrong answers. The moment you start going down the if-then path you fall into their bait & switch trap.
@1247 and @potatocowpower864 Thanks for the responses.
@1247 I am not following your logic map, it seems that there is a necessity/sufficiency error.
You stated that:
Unobtrusive -> inviting + functional
Not inviting or not functional or both -> obtrusive
Modern architect -> not inviting -> obtrusive
This leads to inference that ...
Modern architect -> obtrusive
However, I mapped it out as:
inviting + functional ---> unobtrusive the
contrapostive: obtrusive ---> not inviting or not functional or both
All we know in relation to this conditional is that: Modem architects ---> /functional which allows us to conclude nothing;
so, I am not to sure how we could support that:
Modern architect -> not inviting
As @potatocowpower864 highlights, I now see that the correct answer must hinge on the statement "modern architects have violated this precept, due to there strong personalities" In order words:
Due to their strong personalities ----> there work is obtrusive
The main confusion for me was a grammar issue. I was not sure what "this precept" modified.
Please correct me if my reasoning is still flawed. Thanks!!
In order to be both inviting and functional a work of architecture needs to be unobtrusive
I think that while the logic is that
inviting+functional -> unobtrusive
or
obtrusive -> not inviting or not functional or not both
having knowledge of this if-then relationship is not necessary to answer the question.
rather answer B seems to stand out if you pay attention to the 2nd sentence, that "Modern architects, plagued by their egoism, have violated this precept" with precept being having to be unobtrusive, thus they have produced buildings that are NOT unobtrusive
Hello!
I may not be perfect with my explanation, but I will try my best to work this out for you.
So, the premise...
To be inviting and functional for public use, architecture must be unobtrusive
meaning that architecture should not over take the environment which it belongs to
Unfortunately, selfish modern architects have violated such perception.
The works of these selfish modern architects built works which are not functional for public use.
Logic here is that,
Unobtrusive -> inviting + functional
Not inviting or not functional or both -> obtrusive
Modern architect -> not inviting -> obtrusive
This leads to inference that ...
Modern architect -> obtrusive
This is what answer choice B tells us.
Hope this helps!