The question stem says the critic's reasoning most closely conforms to which one of the following principles.

So we want to identify a principle that this argument uses. In other words,

what is a statement that is underlying this argument?

What is something the author agrees with and is using as part of how they get from their premise to the conclusion?

That's what this is asking. So let's start by breaking down this argument. The critic says the perennial image of the city on a hill

that's high up above other places and that's associated with having elevated purposes, like noble purposes.

The city is above us. The city's concert hall, which is its newest civic building, is located on a spectacular hilltop site.

So this concert hall is indeed like on a high hill.

This is where we have our new concert hall.

But because it is far from the center of the city,

it cannot fulfill the purpose of a civic building. And that right there, this part, sounds like a potential conclusion.

The reason it sounds like a potential conclusion is because we have this word

because in the other part of the sentence. The author is saying because it's far from the center of the city, this thing is

far from the center, and I guess the center is over here. Because of that, the author is saying,

I think that this building cannot fulfill the purpose of a civic building. An example of a successful civic building is the art museum,

which is situated in a densely populated downtown area.

So this art museum, I guess, is like closer to the center.

And this is something that is a successful civic building. The author is saying this one does fulfill the purpose of a civic building.

It encourages social cohesion and makes the city more alive.

But now compare that to the new concert hall. The author is saying, look, the new concert hall,

because it's far from the center, it is not encouraging social cohesion and not making the city feel more alive.

And that therefore proves that it is not fulfilling the purpose of a civic building.

That's the author's line of reasoning here. Now, the conclusion of the argument is indeed this part right over here.

It's being supported by the claim that it is far from the center of the city. That's a premise.

It's also being supported by the example of the art museum. The author is basically using a contrast here.

The author is saying, look, this is something that does fulfill the purpose because it encourages social cohesion and makes the city more alive.

And that helps me show that this new concert hall won't fulfill the purpose

because the author is assuming that it doesn't do what this art museum does.

Now, I'm not sure exactly what to anticipate before going to the answers.

This doesn't seem like an argument where there's just like one clear principle that gets us from the premise to the conclusion.

So I'm going to keep an open mind here.

But let's understand that the author is saying this art museum fulfills the purpose of a civic building

because it's near the center and does these things.

And the author is thinking that this new concert hall, it won't fulfill the purpose because it doesn't do these things.

A civic building that is located in a downtown area should, if possible, be located on an elevated site?

Well, I'm going to get rid of this because the author never says where a building should be located.

The argument is about whether this building fulfills the purpose of a civic building.

But the author is not saying anyone should build a building in a particular area.

And no, don't assume that the author thinks that a civic building should fulfill the purpose of something.

There is a difference between saying that a civic building fulfills a purpose or doesn't fulfill the purpose

and saying that a civic building should fulfill the purpose or should not fulfill the purpose.

So a principle that's about where a building should be built

is not relevant to an argument that isn't about where a building should be built.

Well no, this is not a principle underlying the argument because although the author does believe

that one purpose of a civic building is to encourage social cohesion and make the city feel more alive,

that doesn't mean the author thinks you need to have these civic buildings to have social cohesion.

The author could agree that you actually can have social cohesion without civic buildings,

it's just that the purpose of a civic building is to create the cohesion.

There's a difference between saying that a building does create social cohesion

and then saying that you need to have those buildings in order to have social cohesion.

That's why B is not correct.

If you're attracted to B, you're basically confusing sufficient and necessary conditions

or doing something very similar.

You're interpreting the idea that a building creates social cohesion

as if it means in order to have the social cohesion, you have to have the building.

But that's not what the author thinks.

should be located on a spectacular site?

And I'm going to get rid of this for a very similar reason as I got rid of A.

The argument here is not about where a building should be built.

The argument is about whether or not this fulfills a purpose or not.

The author is trying to say it does not fulfill the purpose.

But that is not a claim about where we should build something.

You can say that this doesn't fit the purpose

without having an opinion about where we should build the building.

Well, I'm going to get rid of this because the argument is not about what we should redesign.

The author never suggests that the downtown area should be designed in a certain way

or redesigned in a certain way that has nothing to do with whether or not

this building fulfills a purpose.

Again, you can say this building does not fulfill the purpose

without thinking anything about where the building should be built,

about how the downtown area should be planned.

The author is not telling anyone what they should do.

and to make a city more alive.

This is a principle underlying the argument.

The author does have to agree with this because the author points to the art museum

as an example of a successful civic building

and then uses that as a contrast to this new concert hall.

The author says, look, this art museum is a successful civic building.

In other words, it does fulfill the purpose of a civic building

because it encourages social cohesion and makes the city more alive.

That means the author thinks that the purpose involves social cohesion

and making a city feel more alive.

Then the author is saying the new concert hall won't do that

and so that's why it won't fulfill the purpose.

It doesn't do what this art museum is doing.

That's why it doesn't fulfill the purpose.

Underlying that connection is what E says,

that the purpose of a civic building is to encourage social cohesion

and make a city feel more alive.

Now, if you're having trouble with this question, just think of it this way.

Which of these answers is the only one that the author absolutely has to agree with?

That's E.

No other answer here is something that the author must be thinking

in order to make this argument.

So that's why you can't say that those are principles that are underlying the argument.