PT 3 SEC 2 Q4
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:51 pm
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?
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?