Logic Reasoning Problem Set #1, #19

[helenliu]

I have questions that are from Logic Reasoning Problem Set #1

19. The question ask which one follows logically from the statements in the passage. The correct answer is "Modern architects who let their strong personalities take over ..."

I don't understand why this is the correct answer. From the stimulus, Modern artists who.....will produce building that are not functional. But is building not functional sufficient to lead not unobstrusive. Is that a MIstaken Negation?

Thank you

[Jon Denning]

Hey Helen - thanks for the questions! This one's pretty tricky, so I'll try to walk you through both the specifics of this stimulus, as well as the broader idea at work.

Let's start with the idea of "violated [a] precept." What exactly are we being told when the stimulus says "modern architects have violated this precept"? Well in a general sense what that means is that people have been able to act in a way that breaks the rule, potentially achieving/accomplishing some thing without fulfilling the necessary component for it. What's interesting is that on the LSAT they go just a bit further with it, and by "violate a precept" they mean specifically that the necessary condition did NOT occur.

Imagine I told you some principle was true, like "People who score well on the LSAT must study hard." And then I said "But recently people have been violating this precept [breaking this rule/avoiding this truth]." What would that mean? For us it would mean that recently people have been scoring well on the LSAT without having to study hard...essentially the necessary condition wasn't necessary anymore. So a disconnect in the original relationship. And the same is true for the test makers, with just a little extra: not only is the necessary no longer necessary, but it's specifically not occurring. So for our example here it wouldn't just be that studying hard is no longer necessary, it would be even more explicit that some people aren't studying hard.

And that's exactly what happens in this stimulus. We are told that if architecture is inviting and functional, it must be unobtrusive. But then we are told that modern architects "violate this precept." That means their architecture IS obtrusive (not unobtrusive). Now, it gets confusing of course with the final sentence, where we're told they produce buildings that are not functional, but that doesn't undermine the second sentence: as soon as the precept is violated we can reasonably conclude the original necessary condition (unobtrusive) is no longer present (not unobtrusive), and that's why answer choice B is correct.

A final point: it's pretty unusual for the test makers to set up relationships like this, where a specific condition or absence of a condition (like "not functional" here) doesn't really matter--again, all we need to know to prove B is the original precept where architecture is unobtrusive is being violated. Usually something like the final sentence of this stimulus would yield inferences of its own, but here it would just lead to a mistaken negation of the original and so it isn't relevant.

Again, tricky question and very uncommon idea/language, but hopefully that helps explain it and also prepares you in case you encounter something similar moving forward!

Jon