PT3.S2.Q04 - a work of architecture

hihihi9993hihihi9993 Member
edited October 2017 in Logical Reasoning 347 karma

Could it be true that C and E are not the correct answers due to the following reasons?
.
C ) The stimulus doesn't discuss about architect in general, but specific architect (modern architect)
E ) Instead of work (object), the stimulus suggests that people (modern architect) have strong personalities that take over their work, which in turn leads to producing buildings that are not function for public use. This could mean that modern architects are impossible to simultaneously express his or her personality and be function for public use
.
.
My diagram:
Inviting + Functional --> Unobstructive (taking 2nd place to total environment)
.
Modern architects (=MA)
MA --> /Unobstructive (taking 2nd place to total environment) --> /Inviting or /Functional
MA --> Strong personalities take over work --> /Functional
.
.
.
Thank you in advance!

Comments

  • inactiveinactive Alum Member
    12637 karma

    Bumping this to the top!

  • thisisspartathisissparta Alum Member
    edited October 2017 1363 karma

    Hi there!

    So I think this is the right way to diagram this question (note: "strong personality" here is synonymous with ego):

    Topic sentence of stimulus: Invitational + Functional --> Unobtrusive buildings
    Contrapositive: /Unobstrusive building --> /Functional + /invitational

    Conclusion: Egos have produced --> /Functional buildings

    Now, we try to connect the dots. If egos have produced buildings which are not functional for public use, that must mean that these same egos have produced not unobtrusive buildings.

    The premise + conclusion, then, looks like this: Egos have produced ---> /Unobstrusive builiding --> /functional

    Here's what it looks like in totality (it has an A-->B--->C form and you have to identify A-->B in the AC):

    Egos have produced ---> /Unobtrusive buildings --> /functional


    Egos have produced ---> /functional

    Now that we have mechanized the entire passage into logic, anything outside its boundaries can be quickly eliminated. Typically, this reason should suffice to eliminate other ACs, but we'll examine the ACs you raised regardless.

    (C) is wrong because 1) it does not talk about modern architects 2) it reinstates the above conclusion (strong personality = ego, for the purposes of this question). It's essentially saying E ---> /F. We already know that.

    (E) is wrong because it makes 0 sense. It talks about architecture "which cannot simultaneously express it's architects personality" -- where in the passage is ANY link between the architect's personality and the work of architecture even suggested?? For this reason alone, you should immediately stop reading the sentence any further and eliminate (E).

    AC (B), by contrast, perfectly fits the bill -- it establishes the A->B relationship highlighted above.

  • hihihi9993hihihi9993 Member
    347 karma

    @"Dillon A. Wright" Thank you for the bump!
    @thisissparta Thank you for taking your time to answer my question! :)

  • LSATlsatLSAT-1LSATlsatLSAT-1 Core Member
    9 karma

    So I don't think the previous commenter got it right, and I think this question is in fact busted. But I'd also like to hear people's thoughts.

    The original logical relationship, we can agree, is I + F -> U. (inviting and functional --> must be unobtrusive).

    @thisissparta writes that

    "If egos have produced buildings which are not functional for public use, that must mean that these same egos have produced not unobtrusive buildings."

    But that's not true. Failing the sufficient doesn't gaurantee that the necessary also fails. If the sufficient fails, the logical relationship ceases to exist.

    As I got from a powerscore forum, the key here is in the fact that "modern architects have violated this precept." This means that for them, the logical relationship in the first sentence doesn't hold: modern architects produce inviting, functional buildings that are nevertheless not unobstrusive, or I + F -> /U.

    Here's where I think the question got it wrong. The correct answer, B, goes "not functional --> not unobtrusive," or /F --> /U. Like @thisissparta, here, the sufficient is failed, so the logical relationship should cease to exist.

    B would be the right answer if it was a CBT question, or if in the stimulus they told you that modern architects are producing functional buildings. But the quetsion is a MBT that relies on an invalid logical relationship.

Sign In or Register to comment.