#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.

[jwooon]

Hi,

I am still really confused about this question. The response above this reply was pretty helpful, but I am still very confused about why we have to exclude the "if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use." Isn't the precept that the second sentence is referring to a conditional statement? If so, don't you have to consider all aspect of the conditional and can only make the assumption that the violation of the precept meant that if you have a sufficient condition, it does not necessarily mean that you have a necessary condition?

Also if you were to consider the conditional, wouldn't the statement that if someone is a modern architect and had let their strong personalities take over, you must make art that is not. unobtrusive a mistaken reversal?

I diagrammed the following:
Rule: I + F U
Exception: MA

(not)MA (I + F U)
(not)MA and (I + F) U
(not) U MA or not(I + F)

From that diagram, if you were to diagram (B), wouldn't it be:
MA (not) U

, which is the mistaken reversal of the last conditional diagrammed above?

Please let me know where I am going wrong!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi jwooon,

This definitely is a tricky question.

You don't have to exclude the "if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use."

The precept (or general rule) is that: if a work of architecture "is to be both inviting and functional for public use," then it must be unobtrusive.

We are then told that modern architects have violated this precept/rule. What does this mean or imply? It basically means that these modern architects tried to create a works of architecture that were both inviting and functional for public use without being unobtrusive.

In other words, if the modern architects weren't trying to create architecture that is "both inviting and functional for public use," (for example, if they had completely different goals/objectives), then I don't think that it would accurate to say that they violated the precept.

Now it turns out that the modern architects were unsuccessful because their buildings were not functional for public use according to the stimulus, so it may be more accurate to say that the modern architects tried to violate the precept, but failed.

Either way, the one thing that we know for sure is that these works were not unobtrusive, because if they were, the modern architects would not have been violating the precept. (Even if they end up not being inviting or functional for public use, that isn't violating the precept because it is possible to have the necessary condition (unobtrusive) without the sufficient, but not the other way around.)

As for your diagrams, the statements in the stimulus regarding modern architects are not conditional, so I would not diagram them as conditional statements. Instead, I would just focus on exactly what it would mean for these modern architects to violate the precept and what that tells us about their buildings (i.e. that they were not unobtrusive).