Explanation of PT3.S2.Q04 A work of architecture

abbymajerus

I got this question wrong both before and after BR and the explanations did not help but I finally think I understand it so I wanted to help anyone still confused like I was!

Here is how I logically mapped it out (I,F, and U mean inviting, functional, unobtrusive)
I & F → U
Contrapositive: Not U → not I or not F

This is the rule which the stimulus says modern architects violate. To violate this rule it would be that it is NOT the case that (I & F → U)
In other words, in order to violate this rule, there must be some case in which there is I and F, but not U

This is where I got caught up, as I was thinking that they had only mentioned that the buildings were not functional, but had not mentioned if they were inviting- but that doesn't matter. For the rule to be violated, it HAS to be the case (MUST BE TRUE) that there is some case with I, F, and NOT U. The other details are unimportant, as the correct answer just focuses on one aspect of the conditions that must be met for this rule to be violated.

Let me know if anyone has another explanation that makes more sense, or if my reasoning is wrong at any point!