Top Law Schools

Might be another stupid question...


I can't find any right answer here.
How come option (B) could be right logic here?

The first sentence says that
To be both inviting and functional, the work must be unobtrusive.
I & F -> Unobtrusive
(This implies that "not Unobtrusive -> either not I or not F")

The last sentence goes,
Modern architects produce buildings that are not functional.
MA -> not F

(B) says that Modern architects produce buildings that are not unobtrusive.
MA -> not unobtrusive

I think it is impossible to infer that "not Functional" is sufficient for "not unobtrusive"


Ugh. HELP!
Somebody rescue me!!

Look for the link between those statements. Answer choice (B) matched my prephrase almost completely.

A) is a mistaken reversal
B) is correct. If it's not functional it's not unobtrusive.
C) is too strong and unsupported
D) is not necessarily true, what if it's not inviting or functional?
E) is not supported

.

.

I'm also severely confused by this question. Nova, you misread:

B says MA -> ~F -> O. Modern architects (that produce buildings NOT F) produce NOT unobtrusive.

Tflemg, he's talking about an issue in the formal logic of the question.

For example, a modern architect could make a run-down looking building that's useless. He has made something that is useless but is also unobtrusive.

Eberry you got it wrong. I originally thought the OP got the formal logic wrong, but the OP is right.

"If it is to be inviting and function, then it must be unobtrusive."

Is properly diagrammed inviting and function -> unobtrusive

If a building is unobtrusive, it isn't necessarily inviting and functional. You can't say inviting and functional -> unobtrusive.

.

PeanutsNJam wrote:For example, a modern architect could make a run-down looking building that's useless. He has made something that is useless but is also unobtrusive.

Who cares? That's not what (B) says.

Either way, the other 4 answers are clearly wrong. Sometimes you can sabotage yourself by thinking too hard about this stuff.

B says that since the architect makes something useless (not functional), his building is therefore also obtrusive.

This logic is flawed.

Look at the OP's analysis of the formal logic. There's nothing wrong with his work.

PeanutsNJam wrote:B says that since the architect makes something useless (not functional), his building is therefore also unobtrusive.

This logic is flawed.

Look at the OP's analysis of the formal logic. There's nothing wrong with his work.

No, you're misinterpreting grammer (double negatives)

PeanutsNJam wrote:I'm also severely confused by this question. Nova, you misread:

Right. I realized that and said F*** it. LOL.

tfleming09 wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:B says that since the architect makes something useless (not functional), his building is therefore also unobtrusive.

This logic is flawed.

Look at the OP's analysis of the formal logic. There's nothing wrong with his work.

No, you're misinterpreting grammer (double negatives)

Woops I meant obtrusive when I typed that.

Maybe this will help, also this resource is a gold mine

Thanks for the replies...

So... we are all confused now?

Surprised wrote:Thanks for the replies...

So... we are all confused now?

No. In situations like this just use process of elimination. You can easily tell that (A) and (D) and mistaken reversals and (C) and (E) are unsupported, leaving you with only (B).

Granted, (B) made immediate intuitive sense to me. Also, this is why I really don't like to use formal logic much in LR. I tend to reserve it only for the "All A's are B's, but some B's are not A's" question type or some tricky parallel reasoning questions. Thinking about this stuff too hard can psych you out, whereas if I hit this question on a test I would have relatively quickly chosen (B) and moved on.

.

I intuitively thought it was B, but then after examining the formal logic it became apparent that B wasn't logically correct.

It is also, however, not logically incorrect.

B "could be true" while all the others must be false.

It seems Manhattan is saying to suspend logic for this one and just "go with it." All the other ones are very wrong (contradicting the stimulus almost), and sometimes you just have lousy questions like this.

.

Forgive me if this was discussed already, but if they violated the precept, then they must not have done what the precept advised, which was to create works that were unobtrusive--couldn't it be looked at that way, or maybe that's an oversimplification...