#7 - Critic: The perennial image of the “city on a hill”

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)

In this stimulus, the critic addresses the question of whether the city’s concert hall can fulfill the
purpose of a “civic building.” The critic concludes that it cannot do so, based on the fact that it is far
from the center of the city. As an example of a building that is a “successful” civic building, the critic
points to the art museum, which is located downtown and “encourages social cohesion and makes
the city more alive.”

The critic’s argument is flawed. The only reason the critic offers for the concert hall not being able
to fulfill the purpose of a civic building is its distance from downtown. We cannot even say what
the purpose of a civic building is. However, based on the example of the art museum, the critic
apparently thinks that the civic building should do what the museum does, i.e., “encourage[] social
cohesion and make[] the city feel more alive.”

The question stem identifies this as a Strengthen—Principle question. Our prephrase is that the
correct answer choice will provide a rule that strengthens the critic’s conclusion that the concert hall
cannot fulfill the purpose of a civic building. The critic did not explicitly state what the purpose of
a civic building is but, as described above, we can infer from the art museum example that the critic
thinks that a civic building should “encourage social cohesion and make the city feel more alive.”

Answer choice (A): This answer choice is attractive for those who focus on the “city on a hill”
language from the beginning of the stimulus. However, that language was simply a distraction from
the author’s main point regarding the purpose of a civic building. Although the concert hall is located
on a hill, the author did not consider its position on a hill in concluding it cannot fulfill the purpose
of a civic center. It was its distance from downtown that was at issue.

Answer choice (B): While we know that the critic thinks a civic building should promote social
cohesion, this answer choice is coming from the wrong perspective. The critic did not discuss what
is necessary for a city to have social cohesion, but rather what is required for a building to fulfill the
role of a civic building.

Answer choice (C): As with answer choice (A), this choice dwells in the distractor language at the
beginning of the stimulus. The critic’s argument had nothing to do with the elevation of the building.

Answer choice (D): Here, the answer choice is incorrect because the argument is not concerned with
the design of the downtown area. This principle is irrelevant to the conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice because it defines the purpose of a civic
building in a way that is consistent with the author’s favorable view of the art museum as a
successful civic building. This answer choice states explicitly the criteria for a successful civic
building that we were able to infer from the critic’s argument.

[Dancingbambarina]

I used conditional reasoning to come to my conclusion:

Civic Building ---> Not Far & Elevated

I saw that no triggers were in the answer choices, but recognized in E that since they say one civic building is successful in the end, it must be true for others on those same grounds of social cohesion and making th city more alive. So I guess I treated it slightly like a MBT, but regardless of that, is my thought process right?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Dancingbambarina,

It sounds like you've generally got the right idea.

The key is understanding the reasoning of the critic's argument and then selecting the principle that best fits with and therefore supports that reasoning. The critic concludes that the concert hall cannot fulfill its purpose of a civic building because it is far from the city center. The critic then provides an example of a successful civic building which is downtown and explains why this downtown building is successful (encourages social cohesion and makes the city more alive).

The assumption/unstated premise that the critic is making is that encouraging social cohesion and making the city more alive is the purpose of a civic building. Even though this isn't an assumption question, the answer is the principle that is underlying the critic's argument.

[Dancingbambarina]

Thank you Jeff!

Would the conclusion be derived from saying:

to fulfill purpose----> encourage social cohesion and to make city more alive----> be close to city

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

This argument is a bit convoluted, Dancingbambarina, but it seems to me that the main conclusion is that the concert hall can't fulfill the purpose of a civic building. Why not? Because it's too far away to encourage social cohesion and make the city more alive, the way the art museum does. Those are the premises, and the assumption that's missing is the principle stated in answer E.

I wouldn't use conditional reasoning or a diagram to figure out how the conclusion was derived. You could, but the argument doesn't use conditional language, so forcing it into that type of analysis isn't called for. I'd say the conclusion is derived by combining the premises and the assumptions, which I would do this way:

Premise: the art museum, located downtown, encourages social cohesion and make the city more alive
Assumption: The purpose of a civic building is to encourage social cohesion and to make a city more alive
Intermediate conclusion: the art museum is a successful civic building (it meets the purpose)
Premise: the concert hall is far away from the city center
Assumption: Buildings that are far from the city center don't encourage social cohesion and/or don't make the city more alive

Conclusion: The concert hall doesn't fulfill the purpose of a civic building

It takes a lot of reorganizing to see the complete structure of the argument, and there are at least these two assumptions, but I think that gets it!