#4 - A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting

[sqmusgrave]

I'm confused on this questions.
If the principle is violated then that must mean that we met the sufficient condition but failed the necessary condition. Just like how the explanation talks about having "doing well and not studying" at the same time.

But if we are told that we don't have the functional aspect, then the sufficient condition is failed, because that's what happens when you don't have part of the conjunction. If the sufficient is failed, then the necessary could be failed or not, in any case it doesn't matter.
I'm so confused about why it doesn't matter that the author said it's not functional, and how we can derive ideas about any other condition from that? How are they going to give us a formal logic question but then not conform to formal logic rules?!

[Dana D]

Hey sq,

It's tricky in this stimulus, but it you get rid of the modifiers in the first sentence (if it is to be...), it says "A work of architecture must be unobtrusive." Therefore, the sentence "Modern architects, plagued by egoism, have violated this precept" is telling us that modern architects are not making unobtrusive buildings. Answer choice (B) is basically just restating this idea.