PT3.S2.Q04 - a work of architecture

Comments

• 1 Like

  inactive Alum Member

  October 2017 12637 karma

  Bumping this to the top!
• 1 Like

  thisissparta Alum Member

  October 2017 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.
• hihihi9993 Member

  October 2017 342 karma

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

  LSATlsatLSAT-1 Core Member

  July 2020 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.