The argument suggests that architectural schools are to blame for structural problems in buildings due to their focus on aesthetics over the basics of good design. To weaken this argument, we need to provide evidence that either architectural schools are not solely responsible for these problems or that their focus on aesthetics is not the primary cause. Let's evaluate the options:
A. All architecture students are given training in basic physics and mechanics.
- This statement supports the argument because it suggests that architecture students do receive training in physics and mechanics, which should help them design structurally sound buildings.
B. Most of the problems with modern buildings stem from poor construction rather than poor design. - This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the primary cause of structural problems in modern buildings is poor construction, not poor design. It implies that architectural schools might not be the main issue.
C. Less than 50 percent of the curriculum at most architecture schools is devoted to aesthetics.
- This statement, if true, weakens the argument by suggesting that architecture schools do allocate a significant portion of their curriculum to non-aesthetic aspects, including the basics of good design.
D. Most buildings manage to stay in place well past their projected life expectancies.
- This option does not directly address the argument's core claim about architectural schools' curriculum and its impact on structural problems in buildings.
E. Architects study as long and as intensively as most other professionals.
- This statement does not directly address the argument's main point about the curriculum and its focus on aesthetics.
Option (B) weakens the argument by indicating that poor construction is the primary cause of structural problems in modern buildings, suggesting that architectural schools may not be the main source of the issue. Therefore, (B) is the most suitable answer to weaken the argument.