hibloom wrote:
A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobtrusive, taking second place to the total environment. Modern architects, plagued by egoism, have violated this precept. They have let their strong personalities take over their work, producing buildings that are not functional for public use.
Which one of the statements below follows logically from the statements in the passage?
(A) Unobtrusive architecture is both inviting and functional.
(B) Modern architects who let their strong personalities take over their work produce buildings that are not unobtrusive.
(C) An architect with a strong personality cannot produce buildings that functional well for the public.
(D) A work of architecture that takes second place to the environment functions well for public use.
(E) A work of architecture cannot simultaneously express its architect’s personality and be functional for public use.
This one is nightmarish and I am happy to have got it right. Answer is indeed B.
A. The premise has been reversed. The argument says that for architecture to be inviting and functional, it must be unobtrusive.... You can't turn it around to say all unobtrusive architecture is inviting and functional.
B. Correct. This is more or less stated in the argument and causes no logical flaws. Don't worry if you think that 'this is already in the agrument'. That is perfectly alright because then it doesn't have a flaw in it, unlike all others.
C. A modern architect is different from any architect. Argument says that modern architects plagued by egoism cannot produce functional buildings. Look out for subtle changes such as this.
D. Similar to A. Premise has been reversed whereas it cannot be.
E. Again, the problem with modern architect vs. architect remains. Irrespective of that, for this to be true, we require additional assumptions because the argument did not say that the egoism problem is with ALL modern architects.