LSAT-5-1-4

entia

4. A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobtrusive, taking second place to the total environment. Modern architects, plagued by egoism, have violated this precept. They have let their strong personalities take over their work, producing buildings that are not functional for public use. Which one of the statements below follows logically from the statements in the passage?

(A) Unobtrusive architecture is both inviting and functional.

(B) Modern architects who let their strong personalities take over their work produce buildings that are not unobtrusive.

(C) An architect with a strong personality cannot produce buildings that functional well for the public.

(D) A work of architecture that takes second place to the environment functions well for public use.

(E) A work of architecture cannot simultaneously express its architect’s personality and be functional for public use

答案b 。看了前人的解释，不懂，回头看好像明白了，贴出来思路，请大家点评以下。

reason: A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobtrusive, taking second place to the total environment.

conclusion: Modern architects, plagued by egoism, have violated this precept.

only focus on the reson and conclusion. we see modern architects violated this precept( if ... ,must be unobtrusive) , we can infer from here that modern architects is not unobtrusive.

right???   open to disscuss

robertchu

Yes, you are basically right.

B reitterates the thrust of the orginal passage.

Bensontuo

entia 发表于 2004-11-14 16:19
4. A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobt ...

The author is not saying modern architects have violated the conditional rule of "if functional and inviting, then unobtrusive". That's a rule the author believes can't be broken. It's essentially a law of nature, or of physics - the rule exists and cannot be broken at will by we mere mortals (or architects).

So what 'precept' are these egotistical modern architects breaking?

Consider this analogy:

If you want an A in my class, you must do all your homework. Mary violated this rule. She let herself be distracted, and got a B.

What rule did Mary violate? The rule that 'you must do all your homework'! As a result of her breaking that rule, she cannot get an A.

All told, excellent reasoning. Please let me know if you have any additional questions on this.

or, you can think in this way

When we hear
"modern architects have violated this precept"
we can rephrase that as
"modern architects have created works of architecture, meant to be both inviting and functional for public use, that have been Obtrusive (i.e "not unobtrusive"), that have not taken second place to the total environment, or both."

Violating a conditional rule (a precept) is to trigger the left side but not deliver on the right side.

Say I give you this precept:
If you want to do better at LSAT, review your work deeply.

If we say "many students have violated this precept",
we're saying "many students who want to do better at LSAT have not reviewed their work deeply".