TTX wrote:Then it goes on to to say that modern architects have "violated this precept" by producing buildings that are no longer functional (so ~B). I'm having a difficult time interpreting the phrase, "violated this precept." How should one translate this phrase back into the original conditional statement?
More generally, since a precept is just a principle, and let's say I have a principle that is a conditional statement (If A then B), when someone says that the principle has been violated, does that automatically mean the negation of the necessary condition, or is it more like: even if A, still not necessarily B.
This is a difficult question, and, honestly, I think the LSAT has solidified the way it views this idea since the earlier tests. However, even with my "modern" understanding of how the LSAT deals with this, it doesn't create an issue for this question.
When you have a precept/principle/conditional statement doubling as a principle, violating it means affirming the sufficient condition but denying the necessary. You don't negate either condition, really - instead, you negate the arrow linking them.
For example, I give you a principle that states: All blondes are dumb, or B->D.
Then, I give you counterexamples. Dolph Lundgren (the Russian from Rocky) has like a PhD in particle physics, or something ridiculous like that. Julia Stiles went to Columbia. There are plenty of blondes out there who aren't dumb.
Therefore, being blonde isn't sufficient to tell me that you're dumb. I haven't negated either condition; rather, I threw out the arrow - these two concepts (blonde, dumb) are no longer inherently linked.
I don't know if that's what the LSAC was going for in this question, because it seems to have nothing to do with anything else. However, it doesn't really matter to the question at hand. I need something that must be true. I know that if a building is I and F, then it's ~O. I know that a building being ~O is linked with taking second place to the environment, so ~O=2toE. And I know that modern architects put their strong personalities first. That means ~2toE, which means O, which is B. If modern architects let their strong personalities take over their work, then they're not going to take second place to the environment, so they're going to be obtrusive.
Honestly, though, this one is easier, I think, from a PoE standpoint:
(A) - Just reverses my conditional statement, so it's out
(C) - "Cannot" is too much here - it seems like they don't, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of it. Additionally, you could make an obtrusive-yet-functional building (McDonald's PlayPlace, anyone?).
(D) - Again, reversing the conditional
(E) - Same as (C).