PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 6
Classical Roman architecture is beautiful, primarily because of(46 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(16 more words not shown)
- Bfails to justify(14 more words not shown)
- Cneglects to consider(22 more words not shown)
- Dneglects to specify(11 more words not shown)
- Eignores the possibility(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I'll accept the descriptions of the two styles. Classical Roman architecture is beautiful, and postmodern architecture is dramatic. The question is what happens when we combine elements of them.
Do we necessarily get the best of both? Imagine taking features of Roman architecture other than the rounded arches and symmetry that make it beautiful, then taking features of postmodern architecture other than the creative uses that make it dramatic. We could have elements from both styles without having either of the qualities the author predicts.
Even selecting attractive features doesn't tell us that they will work well together. Think of mixing milk and lemonade. Liking the drinks separately doesn't guarantee that their mixture will preserve what you liked about each. The combination might be unpleasant.
What we’re looking for
So the flaw is the assumption that combining elements of these styles carries their desirable qualities into the result. Look for an answer allowing the combination to lack beauty, drama, or both. We don't need to deny that a beautiful, dramatic building is possible; we need to question whether combining these elements guarantees it.
Working the answers
- A
This gets the direction wrong. A says that a style cannot have a quality unless its components have it. Our author starts with qualities of the two source styles and assumes that their combination will have those qualities. Requiring a quality in the components is different from assuming that qualities will carry over from the components to the combination.
- B
The author calls postmodern architecture dramatic without claiming that drama is its most salient, or prominent, feature. Some other feature could be more noticeable, and the question about whether drama survives the combination would remain.
- CCorrect
The combined style might lack a quality of either original style. It might draw on Roman elements that don't produce beauty, or its mixture of features might fail to preserve the drama of postmodern architecture. The author has described the source styles without establishing that the proposed combination retains both qualities.
- D
The argument doesn't say that drama causes beauty. It attributes beauty to one style and drama to the other, then predicts both in the combination. We need evidence about what the combination preserves, not a theory of how one quality contributes to the other.
- E
Another architectural style might already be both beautiful and dramatic. That would show that the two qualities can coexist, but it would tell us nothing about whether this particular combination produces them. The author never claims this is the only possible style with both qualities.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.