Skip to Main Content

PrepTest 73, Logical Reasoning 1, Question 16


Question 16, when a question asks for how an argument proceeds or what it proceeds by, we call that a method of reasoning question. And on a method of reasoning question your job is to describe the way that the argument is put together, describe how the person arguing goes about arguing. Of course in order to do that you have to understand the argument, find its conclusion and find its evidence.

Here the conclusion is helpfully flag for us at the end with that helpful keyword thus. Thus it will be better at the top prize and architecture were awarded to the best building rather than the best architect. The evidence for this takes a couple of forms. First off, they tell us how it's done right now.

The top prize in architecture, the Pritzker Prize, is awarded for individual achievement like the Nobel Prizes for science. Then the author talks about how things work in architecture. Architects are judged by their buildings and buildings are the result of teamwork. Then the author makes that comparison, a negative comparison. As achievements, buildings are not like scientific discoveries, but like movies, which compete for awards for best picture.

So we can see how the argument works. It says that something should be done differently in architecture, because architecture is similar to one discipline, where it's one way. But is it similar to the movies where it's done with best picture, and it's not very similar to another discipline science, where it's done for individual achievement.

The correct answer is gonna have to lay this out somehow. So we just look into the answers for something that is a good description. We wanna be open to what it says down there because there are a lot of different ways to describe the same thing. So answer choice A, reaching a conclusion about the way something should be done in one field on the basis of comparisons with corresponding practices in other fields.

Well that word comparisons does a lot of lifting but it is the answer. So buildings are not like scientific discoveries, but like movies. Those are the comparisons that they use. And they are reaching a conclusion about the way something should be done in a field that is the way of the Pritzker Prize should be given out in architecture. So A describes exactly what's happening.

We can give a courtesy glance to the other answers to see why they are wrong. Answer choice B. Answer choice B gets the conclusion wrong. It says that the author concluded that one thing has more value than another. And the author didn't do that. They didn't say that buildings are more valuable than something.

So B's not our answer. Answer choice C, answer choice C gets the conclusion wrong too, concluding that criticisms of one practice can rightly be applied to another. It's not saying, well because it's wrong in this one area, it's wrong in this other area. They're not applying criticisms from one to another.

Answer choice D confuses what they're comparing. They're not saying that because two different fields are different, then you can't say anything about one on the basis of the other. They're saying because one field is similar and another field is different, you should do things like they do in the one field and not like they do in the second field.

This one is saying you could never use a field to make any conclusions about other fields. Then answer choice E gets all sorts of things wrong. The first bar is fine, they are saying that an action is inappropriate, that is it's inappropriate to give the Pritzker Prize to the architect rather than the building.

But they don't do that on the basis of evidence that a corresponding action in a different case is inappropriate. That, again would be saying because they do it wrong here, we shouldn't do it that way here. And they never said it was wrong for science to give out the Nobel Prize for individual achievement, just that science isn't enough like architecture for they're really one in the other.

So the answer was answer choice A.

Read full transcript