PT 3 SEC 2 Q4 Forum

[mjsjr]

Hi, everyone. I am having a hard time understanding this question. The correct answer is B, but I don't understand why. From the stimulus, I've reasoned that if a work of architecture is to be both inviting and functional, it must be unobtrusive--so:
inv & func --> unobtrusive and -unobtrusive --> -inv or -func; and that modern architects produce buildings that are not functional. Thus, so far I have three components to the argument:

(1) inv & func --> unobtrusive;
(2,the contrapositive of the above) -unobtrusive --> -inv or -func;
and (3) -func.

The question stem asks what logically follows from the statements in the passage, but I don't see what would follow besides a restatement of any of the above statements; the lack of function created by the architects is only a necessary condition of the second component listed above, so no further inferences can be made, or at least that is what I thought.

Clearly I'm missing something. Can anyone help me out?

[dmw88]

I just asked about this to graeme blake. I also included my take on the answer.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=235369