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.
Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests