PT 3 LR 1 Q4

TTX
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:00 am

PT 3 LR 1 Q4

Postby TTX » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:01 pm

PT 3 LR 1 Q 4
I went on Manhattan LSAT and found their explanation inadequate.

I understand it as a must be true question with a conditional in the stimulus.
The stimulus essentially says If an architecture is to be both inviting [A] and functional [B], then it must be unobtrusive [~C].
Simplified: If [A] + [B} --> [~C].

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.

Please help!



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, addie1412 and 9 guests