16 is a method of reasoning question. The argument proceeds by...

So let's read this, try to figure out what the premises are, conclusion, and then see which one of the five answer choices best describes the argument.

It's all going to be very high level. You're going to have to bring down some of the abstraction into the level of detail actually present in the stimulus.

But, architects are judged by their buildings, and buildings are a result of teamwork.

Look, you already see it. Individual achievement versus team achievement, non-individual achievement.

As achievements, buildings are not like scientific discoveries.

See here, they're saying the top prize in architecture is awarded for individual achievement, like Nobel Prize for science.

But science is individual, whereas this is not.

What is this like? What's the Pritzker Prize like? It's more like architecture. It's more like movies.

Buildings are teamwork, more like movies. And movies compete for awards for best picture.

The award is given to the picture, the movie, not the individual, because it's a teamwork effort.

Thus, it would be better if the top prize in architecture were awarded to the best building rather than the best architect.

So here, if you still want to get a clearer sense, it's like, here we have architecture, here we have science, here we have movies.

The prizes are given to individuals.

But scientific discovery is an individual thing. This is a teamwork thing.

So, the argument is that this is more similar to movies, so therefore the prizes, really, would be better if the prizes were given,

just like how here it's given to the movie. So, here you want to give it to the building.

Instead of the architect. So that's how the argument proceeds by making use of analogies.

It should be done this way. In one field, abstract, bring it down. Field is architecture.

That's what the conclusion is about. On the basis of comparison with corresponding practices in other fields,

yeah, science and movies. See, this comparison bit allows you to say, you know, we're comparing this to this,

and we're saying, oh look, it's not really that similar. And we're comparing this and this,

we're saying, oh really, it's much more similar. Therefore, we should do it this way, and give it to the,

I don't even know what, the object of the team collaboration. Here's movie, here's buildings.

So, Ace right. Now, the others, they just do not describe our argument.

What are you talking about? Scientific discovery versus movies versus buildings?

We're making distinctions to say which one is the most valuable or what.

Right, these crazy. Pointing to similarities between two practices as a basis, rather, for,

see, like, you know, if you're going to say this as a basis for concluding, so this is supposed to be our premise descriptor, right?

This bit is supposed to describe our premises. So, what are the similarities between two practices?

I guess the teamwork bit, is that what you're referring to? This is teamwork, this is teamwork.

For concluding that criticism of one practice can be rightly applied to the other. That's the conclusion descriptor, right?

Concluding that this is supposed to be our conclusion. That's, thus, however we criticize, what?

How we criticize movies is how we should criticize the building of buildings, the construction of buildings.

Or how we criticize the process of scientific discovery is how we rightly apply to the criticism of building construction.

Is that what you see? I mean, in the abstract, it all sounds nice.

But once you try to really pin this down to the language that we're actually using in Simulus, you realize how different it is.

So, the different, disanalogous has to be the architecture field and the science field.

So, okay, they're disanalogous because this is individual work, this is teamwork.

The characteristics of one field are not relevant to justifying a conclusion about the other.

Is that the conclusion? I mean, this has to be the conclusion descriptor, right?

Because this, this. So, this is the conclusion descriptor. Is that right for a conclusion descriptor?

I mean, you could try very, we could be very charitable to the conclusion descriptor and say,

look, if what you mean by the characteristics of one field not being relevant, meaning, I guess, the fact that prizes are awarded to the individual, right?

That characteristic, quote unquote, of a field, that is not, it's not relevant to justifying something about this.

Like, I don't mean, the conclusion is specifically that, no, instead, what you ought to do here should be more informed by this other field, by this other field, by this thing, by movies, right?

That's the conclusion descriptor. Not that, therefore, this has, like, because if D is right, then I should not have heard anything about movies in our argument, right?

Because it's just, look, these two things, this analogous, therefore, whatever is used to justify giving prizes to scientists, not relevant to justifying giving prizes to architects, right?

Which, that's not, that's not what this argument says, right? Do you see that?

by presenting an argument that a corresponding action in an analogous case is inappropriate. What?

But this is not a, I mean, the two analogous cases has to be these two cases, right?

Well, nothing's inappropriate going on here, nothing's inappropriate going on here, right? So, this E is also not right.