Q4 - A work of architecture

[yusangmin]

hello.

so i found that architecture work must be unobtrusive in order to be inviting and functional for public use. then when the stimulus says they have violated this precept, is that the same thing as saying, modern architects are obtrusive (not unobtrusive). then his reasoning for this is they have let their strong personalities take over, producing buildings that are not functional.


so:

architects: strong personalities take over, produced buildings that are not functional
conclusion: architects not unobtrusive.

so is his assumption: if strong personalities take over, it leads to being not unobtrusive, which are then unfunctional?

i have a explanation for this and it just DOES NOT seem right or thorough.
this is just confusing me because if having strong personalities in work leads to not being functional, that leads to the necessary condition for being not unobtrusive, being not functional is not sufficient for being unobtrusive. however he states outright that they are not unobtrusive. so i just assumed thats his assumption that strong personality presupposes obtrusiveness? ...confusing..

always a big help! i would appreciate it!! thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'm more than happy to help.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that we haven't (as of yet) spent anytime looking at the question stem. This question asks us to find a statement that follows logically from the statements in the passage. This is an inference question - we are looking to find what must be true based on the statements made.

Remember, generally the stimulus (the initial paragraph) can take two forms - either a series of facts or an argument. If we are presented with an argument, then we should analyze it and determine what it's weaknesses are (possibly even find the assumption of the argument). However, if we are given a series of facts, this is not necessary. In this case, all we need to do is find an answer choice that must be true if all the statements in the stimulus are true.

We know that if a work of architecture is to be both inviting and functional for public use, then it must be unobtrusive. We know that this precept (conditional relationship) has been violated by modern architects who have let their strong personalities take over their work. Thus, we know that answer choice (B), that "modern architects who let their strong personalities take over their work produce buildings that are not unobtrusive," must be true.

(A) has the conditional relationship in the first sentence backwards.
(C) goes too far. We know that there are modern architects who have strong personalities that do not produce buildings well suited for the public. But to say that every architect who has a strong personality cannot produce buildings well suited for public use is too extreme!
(D) has the conditional relationship backwards again. We know that if a building is well suited for public use, then it must be unobtrusive, which in turn implies that it takes second place to the environment. We cannot say, however, that if it takes second place to the environment, then it is well suited for public use.
(E) is not supported. We cannot say that these two conditions are mutually exclusive.

[tamwaiman]

Hi, I have a one.

A conditional relationship: "if a work of architecture is to be both inviting and functional for public use, then it must be unobtrusive."

and the conclusion: "producing buildings that are NOT functional for public use."

Since it is a must-be-true question, and the conclusion negates the sufficient conditional but not the necessary one, how can we infer the answer (B)? It is not a contrapositive formula at all.

Thank you.

[alexisyoo529]

i have the same question with tamwaiman.

shouldn't the first sentence of the stimulus be diagrammed as:

inviting
and → unobstrusive ?
functional


honestly, because I diagrammed
the conditional this way, i immediately dismissed (B)

please enlighten me thanks a lot

[todavidzheng]

ditto.

i think this question itself is invalid, cuz no answer is right.

[zl7391e]

Hi guys,
This question is not, deceiving as it appears, testing our ability to work with if-then conditionals. Instead, the key to solving this question is to recognize that the phrase "taking second place to total environment" defines what "˜unobtrusive’ means (1st sentence of the stimulus). That is, unobtrusive = taking second place to environment. Or logically, "work of architecture is unobtrusive" if and only if "work of architecture is taking second place to total environment". Next, the stimulus gives us reasons to negate the sentence that modern artists’ work of architecture is taking second place to total environment.

"they lave let their strong personalities take over their work" (last sentence in the stimulus)
→ (implies that )
NOT ["Work of architecture is taking second place to total environment." ]

The last sentence in the stimulus implies that modern artist have NOT let work take second place to environment; instead, they let their work take second place to their personalities. The essence is that ,

A(=unobtrusive) if and only if B (= taking second place to environment).
So if NOT B(=not taking second place to environment), then NOT A (=not unobtrusive).
That’s how we get the answer choice B.

Hope it helps.

[aileenann]

I think this is a great way to look at the argument - well done!

I understand those of you who feel frustrated with this one - definitely an example of why we work by process of elimination rather than gunning for the right answer. This one also shows how we have to think outside the box sometimes.

[s.atrmachin3]

It seems like the inviting/functional/environment part is meant to distract us. Would it be a mistake or oversimplification to handle this problem in this manner?:

A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobtrusive.

Modern architects, plagued by egoism, have violated this precept.

Can we just ignore the tiny text and proceed with only the bolded text in mind? They have violated the precept that buildings must be unobtrusive.

In other words, they have produced buildings that are not unobtrusive.

L

[meltgonzalez]

You guys are awesome.
I was up in arms about the problem sitting here in the library nd decided to google it and found this place. Had the exact train of thoughts as y'all, but was too unsure if my version of what vinny so articulately detailed was right. Glad to see that it was, still upset but glad to see a community slogging through like I am. Good luck everyone

[christine.defenbaugh]

It seems like the inviting/functional/environment part is meant to distract us. Would it be a mistake or oversimplification to handle this problem in this manner?:

A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobtrusive.

Modern architects, plagued by egoism, have violated this precept.

Can we just ignore the tiny text and proceed with only the bolded text in mind? They have violated the precept that buildings must be unobtrusive.

In other words, they have produced buildings that are not unobtrusive.

L

s.atrmachin3, this thought process is really quite fantastic. The only tweak I would give it is that I would be wary of just altogether ignoring the 'if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use'. But you are 100% correct that that conditional trigger is not 'the precept' mentioned.

The author is not saying modern architects have violated the conditional rule of "if functional and inviting, then unobtrusive". That's a rule the author believes can't be broken. It's essentially a law of nature, or of physics - the rule exists and cannot be broken at will by we mere mortals (or architects).

So what 'precept' are these egotistical modern architects breaking?

Consider this analogy:

If you want an A in my class, you must do all your homework. Mary violated this rule. She let herself be distracted, and got a B.

What rule did Mary violate? The rule that 'you must do all your homework'! As a result of her breaking that rule, she cannot get an A.

All told, excellent reasoning. Please let me know if you have any additional questions on this.

[alvi123]

Sorry people I am little confused here

Reading all these posts, I cannot see how the reasoning 'above' is making sense.

My 1st question is, does violate = negate? I am assuming yes here.

With the analogy of the homework ----->

Surely to violate the condition is the student getting an A WITHOUT DOING THE HOMEWORK!!!!!

The student getting a B without doing the homework DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONDITIONAL???

So for the question, what puzzles me is that to violate the precept, a work of architecture that is INVITING and FUNCTIONAL FOR PUBLIC USE is NOT UNOBTRUSIVE.

However the last sentence has stated that MODERN ARCHITECTS plagued by egoism produce buildings that are NOT functional for public use.

So these whether these buildings produced by modern architects are obtrusive/unobtrusive don't violate the precept?

[testtakernce]

Hey guys,

I'm working on my ability to break down arguments, and have a quick question. What is the main conclusion of the stimulus? I selected "Modern architects, plagued by egotism, have violated this precept," and identified "they have let their strong ......buildings that are not functional for public use" as the subsidiary conclusion..


Am I correct? If not, please let me know if where the error lies.

Thanks in advance!

[ldfdsa]

You guys are amazing. Here is my two cents.
IF A ->B is a rule or precept. to violate it, we should do A -/-> B or A -> ~B or their contrapositives.
Here, Modern architects violate the precept and think A -> -B is the right rule. so they do as (B) said. But, according the rule/precept, if they do this, They will get -A, which is what the last sentence said: "They have let their .... use."

I don't know if those thoughts are useful, and I will not do it at test. I will go with eliminating those easy wrong answers.

sorry for my broken English.

Hope this will help

Daniel

[BackoftheEnvelope]

It seems like the inviting/functional/environment part is meant to distract us. Would it be a mistake or oversimplification to handle this problem in this manner?:

A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobtrusive.

Modern architects, plagued by egoism, have violated this precept.

Can we just ignore the tiny text and proceed with only the bolded text in mind? They have violated the precept that buildings must be unobtrusive.

In other words, they have produced buildings that are not unobtrusive.

I'm not sure whether they're meant to distract us, but I am uncertain of their role nonetheless. What I got from reading the stimulus intuitively was that modern architects are creating works of architecture, but that they are not taking second place to the environment (they are obtrusive). I inferred this from the second sentence, "Modern architects [...] have violated this precept."

Proving this formally, however, is a bit more tricky. I just want to say that relying on a mechanical approach here is by far the inferior alternative, but here's my best attempt (sentence-by-sentence) to make things a bit more clear nonetheless:

(1) If a work of architecture is to be both inviting (I) and functional for public use (FPU), then it must be unobtrusive (~O), taking second place to environment (SPE):

I + FPU --> ~O (SPE) ;
The contrapositive gives us: O (~SPE) --> ~I or ~FPU ; in simple English, "If a work of architecture is obtrusive (does not take second place to the environment), then it is either not inviting or not functional for public use [remember that it could also be both; see 'inclusive disjunction']"

(2) Modern architects (MA) have violated this precept. [I treated "violated this precept" as them creating obtrusive works of architecture.]

MA --> O (~SPE) ;
MA --> O (SPE) --> ~I or ~FPU ; link to the contrapositive of (1): O (~SPE) --> ~I or ~FPU
MA --> ~I or ~FPU ; infer this from the two conditionals above (transitively)

(3) Modern architects produce buildings that are not functional for public use (FPU).

MA --> ~FPU

I was initially worried about making the leap I did above for (2) but this sentence seemed to confirm that it was a correct inference since (3) MA --> ~FPU is a consequence of (2) MA --> ~I or ~FPU.

[a8l367]

Can somone clarify?

Why if " Modern architects HAVE violated this perception" means "Modern architects PRODUCE". I mean how such generalisation can be derived from the past event? I could be one-off event.

[ohthatpatrick]

When we hear
"modern architects have violated this precept"
we can rephrase that as
"modern architects have created works of architecture, meant to be both inviting and functional for public use, that have been Obtrusive (i.e "not unobtrusive"), that have not taken second place to the total environment, or both."

Violating a conditional rule (a precept) is to trigger the left side but not deliver on the right side.

Say I give you this precept:
If you want to do better at LSAT, review your work deeply.

If we say "many students have violated this precept",
we're saying "many students who want to do better at LSAT have not reviewed their work deeply".

[NathanB506]

Hi all, I know this has been going on for a while, but I don't find any of these answers satisfying. The stimulus says the following:

Functional + Inviting --> Unobtrusive

Strong personalities --> -Functional

The question asks what must follow logically, or:

Strong personalities --> -Functional --> ??

Answer B says:

Strong personalities --> -Functional --> -Unobtrusive

Which relies on the illegal negation of the first conditional. If we properly use the contrapositive of the first conditional it would look like:

Strong personalities --> -Unobtrusive --> -Functional

This would be a good answer choice if the question were about what the argument depends on, instead of what follows logically. The answer is clearly wrong, unless something in this vague sentence about violating the precept is supposed to change the argument. I've read the previous posts. Your help is appreciated!

[ohthatpatrick]

You shouldn't be representing the last sentence as a conditional. There is no universal relationship being offered there between strong personalities and not functional buildings.

Yes, it is what is in the vague sentence that gives us the ammunition for (B).

Since modern architects have violated that precept, we know that
"Modern architects have made stuff that was NOT unobtrusive (i.e. they have made stuff that is obtrusive)."

When you combine that with our knowledge that
"Modern architects have let their strong personalities take over their work"
it's possible to derive (B).

[NathanB506]

Thank you for taking the time to reply, I appreciate it. I hate to pound on one question, but let me write it out with apples and fruits, because it's something with which we are familiar:

A work of modern architecture, if it is to be an apple, must be a fruit.
Modern architects, plagued by egoism, violate this precept.
They let their strong personalities take over their work, producing not apples (by not producing apples).
It follows logically that they produced not fruits (didn't produce fruits).

Except it doesn't follow logically that they produced "not fruits". Unless I'm mistaken, the question isn't asking what could possibly be, but what must be. Had the end of stimulus read, "producing building that are not fruits" then it would have logically followed that the strong personalities lead them to produce "not apples". Fruit (unobtrusive) is what follows necessarily from the sufficient clause, apple (functional). Answer B appears to suggest that strong personalities are the cause, and the necessary clause is the effect, which in turn causes the sufficient clause, which is an illegal reversal.

If you stop at the second line you might argue that "violate this precept" means "didn't produce fruits". Answer B is then not what follows logically, it's just a rewording. But the idea of strong personalities used in Answer B isn't even introduced until the third line so we can't stop there to get Answer B.

Again, thank you for your time.

[ohthatpatrick]

You're just hearing (B) sound like it's causal, but there's no causal wording in there.

Modern Presidents who inhabit the White House breathe air that has oxygen in it.


That isn't saying anything causal, and it's not saying anything conditional, unless you want to make it conditional in the form of,
"If you're a modern Pres who inhabits the White House, then you breathe oxygenated air."

We could make (B) conditional, if you want (still not causal):
"If you're a modern architect who lets strong personality take over work, then you've produced obtrusive buildings".

The 2nd and 3rd sentences each use 'modern architects' as a universal.

2nd:
If you're a modern architect, then you've made obtrusive works of architecture.

3rd:
If you're a modern architect, then you have let your strong personality take over your work.

Since both ideas are true about all modern architects, then we could potentially derive:
If modern architect who has made obtrusive works, then let strong personality take over
as well as
If modern architect who has let strong personality take over, then have made obtrusive work.

The form
"If you're an A who is a B, then you're C" is not necessarily assigning any logical force between B and C.

EXAMPLE:
If you're a man who likes to play video games, then you were born with a Y chromosome.

That is a true statement, only because it's true to say "If you're a man, then you were born with a Y chromosome". (we're ignoring messy real life exceptions)

The video game part doesn't have to play any logical role.

I think you're troubled by the funky wording they chose (it is Test 3, after all), but it's just an arbitrary way of saying something that is technically provable. Also, we would need an answer we prefer over (B) to make a case that (B) isn't the best available answer.