A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional fo

Question

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.

zonk · Accepted Answer

I would go B.

(A) The passage says if X then Y. The answer says If Y then X.
(B) CORRECT. If modern architects violate the first sentence, then they must create obtrusive buildings
(C) Goes too far. Passage never said these architects can't. It says they don't.
(D) The passage says if X then Y. The answer says If Y then X.
(E) Here, the architectural work can express an architect's personality as long he/she doesn't let the personality run wild.

stallone · Answer

B here is what i think : lemme concentrate on E and B as they are the fav.

B : it logically follows ; it is not something stated directly but something that one has to deduce. The argument gives below statements : 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 have let their strong personalities take over their work, producing buildings that are not functional for public use. ---> Modern architects who let their strong personalities take over their work produce buildings that are not (not functional for public use) unobtrusive. E is quite a strong statement in saying that something "cannot" happen ; the author just says that "architects have let their strong personalities take over their work" it doesn't mean that "work of architecture cannot express its architect’s personality and at the same time be functional for public use."

thevenus · Answer

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.

A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobtrusive 
 To be unobtrusive there must be TWO conditions to follow (i) Inviting & (ii) Functional.

... strong personalities take over their work, producing buildings that are   not functional   for public use. 
 Above mentioned (ii) point is violated by some , so one condition is not satisfying ( out of (i) Inviting & (ii) Functional) so it can't be unobtrusive.

(B) wins

jasonbig1977 · Answer

i know OA is B but i am not sure i agree. i feel B is a mistaken negation, here is why

question says "if it is to be both inviting (INV) and functional (FUN) for public use, must be unobtrusive (UOBT)" 
So INV & FUN ---> UOBT
now, "modern archtect... strong personalities (MASP) ...producing buildings that are not functional (-FUN)"
So MASP ---> -FUN

in order for B to be correct, you need -FUN ---> -UOBT, but you can't get there with INV & FUN ---> UOBT

it is a typical mistaken negation, isn't it?

plumber250 · Answer

Hi Jason,

Forgive me for being blunt, but I honestly think you are overcomplicating.

2 points:
1. Even if your complicated answer has merit, then it's clear that all the other answers are far worse, so in the exam, you'd be wrong to look elsewhere

2. I don't think your argument stands (I hope I have read it correctly - your shorthand is confusing).

The argument says basically that modern buildings are obtrusive. This is because modern architects have egos.

The functional/inviting stuff is explanation not argument.

So the conclusion just has to be related to the argument. For B this works nicely.

James

aviram · Answer

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.

LogicGuru1 · Answer

Answer is B

This is a "must be true question type". No conclusion is presented. Only statements are given.
Correct answer will be a rewording of the Statements/Premise
Lets quickly break the argument into Premises.

Premise 1) A work of architecture, IF it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be UN-obtrusive.

Premise 2) Modern architects, have big ego. They have violated this precept/general rule/golden truth/. They make obtruive building because of their huge ego.

Premise 3) Modern architect personality dominates them and they produce building that are non functional (hence their building are UN- inviting and  Obtrusive )

Option B stares this in a double negative language construct.

(B) Modern architects who let their strong personalities take over their work produce buildings that are NOT UN-Obtrusive. (that are  Obtruive )
It matches our premise 3 like a glove.

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.

BenjaminS · Answer

My understanding of the passage is that if a work of architecture is to be both inviting and functional for public use, it must be unobtrusive.
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.
 So Modern architects are not unobtrusive.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional fo

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional fo

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards