Self-study
Support Classical Roman architecture is beautiful, Support primarily because of its use of rounded arches and its symmetry. ██████████ ████████████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████████ ██ █████████████ █████ ████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ █████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ █████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a blend of classical Roman and postmodern architectural elements would create an architectural style style that is both beautiful and dramatic. As support, the author says that Classical Roman architecture is beautiful and postmodern architecture is dramatic.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author erroneously assumes that combining elements of two different styles (Classical Roman and Postmodern) will yield a third style that maintains the qualities of the original styles.
An analogous argument can demonstrate why this is a flaw:
Red velvet cupcakes are rich. Grilled salmon is delicious. Therefore, a dish that combines elements of red velvet cupcakes and grilled salmon will be delicious and rich.
6.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██
a
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ██ █████████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ █████ █████████
(A) describes a part-to-whole flaw, which isn’t an assumption made by the author.
In this context, this would look like assuming that, because Classical Roman architecture is beautiful, rounded arches and symmetry must be beautiful. This flaw doesn’t happen in this argument.
b
fails to justify ███ ███████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ████████████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ███████
The argument does not assume that drama is the most salient feature of postmodern architecture. The argument just says that postmodern architecture is dramatic. There is no comparison between “dramatic” and other features of postmodern architecture.
c
neglects to consider ████ ██ █████████████ █████ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██████
This is the flaw. The argument doesn’t acknowledge that it is possible to combine elements of classical Roman and postmodern architecture, and for the resulting style to lack beauty and drama.
d
neglects to specify ███ ███ █████ ██ ██ █████████████ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████
This information is not relevant to the argument. We don’t need to know how the drama of postmodern architecture contributes to its beauty.
e
ignores the possibility ████ █████ ███ █████ █████████████ ██████ █████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ████ █████ ███ ██████
This is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument just discusses two architectural styles (Classical Roman and Postmodern) and what would happen if elements of these styles were combined. Other architectural styles are irrelevant to the argument.