Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: PT-3-2-4 AND3-4-22  (Read 312 times)

hellokelly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
    • Email
PT-3-2-4 AND3-4-22
« on: May 27, 2010, 12:05:26 AM »
For 3-2-4
Both inviting and functional-> unobstrusive
Not unobsrtusive, not inviting or not functional. then why B is right?
for3-4-22 why C is wrong?

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: PT-3-2-4 AND3-4-22
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2010, 08:35:59 PM »
3-2-4
The conditional you made is correct, but I don't think you're considering the entire stimulus. 
We're originally given what you wrote above:

I & F --> U (i.e. Unobtrusiveness is necessary for an inviting and functional building.)

But don't ignore the second sentence.  "Modern architects, plagued by egoism, have violated this precept."  This is important.  How might one violate the precept?  By not doing what is necessary--by building a non-unobtrusive building.  (Don't ya love LSAT double negatives?)

The followup sentence then tells us how they violate it--by letting their strong personalities take over their work. 

Putting it all together, when these modern architects let their strong personalities take over their work, they violate the precept, which means to produce buildings which are not unobtrusive.

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: PT-3-2-4 AND3-4-22
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2010, 08:39:36 PM »
3-4-22
C is wrong because you cannot infer that the long testing period is "excessively" long, and even if you could, you can't infer who is responsible for it being so long.  Perhaps the FDA or Congress, and not the research community, mandates it being that long.