PrepTest 141, Section 2, Question 16
The top prize in architecture, the Pritzker Prize,(64 more words not shown)
The argument proceeds(1 more words not shown)
- Areaching a conclusion(21 more words not shown)
- Bmaking a distinction(19 more words not shown)
- Cpointing to similarities(20 more words not shown)
- Darguing that because(20 more words not shown)
- Econtending that an(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A building takes a team. I can see why someone would want an architecture award to recognize the finished building rather than just one architect.
But doesn't a scientist often work with a team too? If I helped in a laboratory that produced a major discovery, I might feel I contributed to the achievement even if the prize named someone else. And what if an architecture prize recognizes a person's work across several buildings? There could be reasons for an individual award that this comparison doesn't address.
What we’re looking for
Those are questions we might raise about how persuasive the argument is. The task here is different: describe how it proceeds. The author compares architecture's individual award with science prizes, then says buildings are more like movies, which compete for best picture. That second comparison supports changing what receives the architecture prize. We're looking for a description of using practices in other fields to recommend a practice in this one.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The proposed change concerns architecture: award the top prize to the best building. The comparisons concern awards in science and film. The author uses the difference from scientific discoveries and the similarity to movies to support treating architectural achievements more like films. This captures both the recommendation and the way the argument supports it.
- B
The author distinguishes buildings from scientific discoveries, but doesn't conclude that one has greater inherent value. The question is what an award should recognize, not whether architecture is more valuable than science or buildings more valuable than movies. B gives the comparison a different endpoint.
- C
We don't get a criticism of science prizes that is then carried over to architecture prizes. The author mentions the similar individual-award practice, then recommends a different approach based on the comparison with movies. Similar practices aren't used to transfer an existing criticism from one to the other.
- D
There is a stated difference between buildings and scientific discoveries, but the argument doesn't simply dismiss another field as irrelevant. It actively uses the film comparison to support its recommendation. D misses that positive use of a comparison and therefore doesn't describe the argument's overall method.
- E
The author never argues that an award in another field is inappropriate and then uses that judgment to condemn the architecture award. Science's individual prizes and film's best-picture prizes are described, not independently criticized. E would require an argument against the corresponding practice that we aren't given.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.