"Primarily concerned" is much like "primary purpose"; we should expect some general language that attempts to encapsulate the overall topic/point.
A) The author definitely analyzed the ultimate shortcomings of the Modernist Movement. Lines 6-9 establish early on that the story to be told is one of MM's ironic problems. The final paragraph/sentence reinforces that (and why) MM ultimately declined. "Failure" is pretty strong, but we should keep the answer.
B) There are no predictions about where Modernist architecture is going in the future (unless you consider "it has declined" to be a prediction).
C) This is somewhat tempting, since the author thinks that part of Modernism's problem was that it misunderstood how some of its ideals were not conducive to changing building methods. But the author's overall goal in the passage isn't to correct a misconception about Modernist architecture, and we can't point to anything in the passage that is identified as a misconception about Modernist architecture.
D) The author seems largely on board with those who would criticize Modernism. This answer makes it seem like the author wanted to counter possible criticism.
E) "incompatible" is strong. The author doesn't really bring up multiple viewpoints on Modernism and pit them against each other. Instead, the proponents of Modernism have their viewpoint explained, and then the author merely shows how ultimately the architectural world moved away from Modernism.
(A) seems to be the best answer.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
-
- HughM388
-
Thanks Received: 2
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 54
- Joined: July 05th, 2020
Re: Q27
I want to note that there is a fairly titanic problem with this question. "Failure" does indeed seem strong, and not just strong but in this context almost fantastically vacuous. Perhaps you've heard of Manhattan—oh, wait, it's in the very name of this website. Picture, therefore, the metropolis of that name. Does the image of an endless vista of skyscrapers immediately appear in your mind? Modern architecture, as far as you can see. Perhaps you're also familiar with the fact that in the world—across the world—there are cities, townships, suburbs, burgs, hamlets, settlements, and parishes, and that in just about each and every one of those places there are buildings made in the modern style. The modern style is the single-most overrespresented building style in the world.
That's not exactly what I'd call a "failure" of a school of design. In fact, modern architecture could be considered the most successful style of architecture in the history of the world. It's possible, of course, to interpret the word "failure" as "decline," but even then the inescapable, patently obvious reality is that modern architecture is omnipresent still, and shows no signs of going away anytime soon. Find me a building taller than six stories being built, right now, anywhere in the world that isn't modern or modern-derived. There has been no failure, and no decline.
Meanwhile, the word's overt meaning is something quite different from "decline," so its use here is either a very cheap attempt to use the ambiguities of connotation to make a problem more difficult, or it's an example of editorial bungling by people who don't understand the meaning of words or don't have a baseline awareness of the made world that surrounds them.
There's also the problem that the passage itself is tendentious and factually insupportable, in real-world terms. Tom Wolfe entertained a similarly fatuous thesis in his vastly underwhelming "From Bauhaus to Our House," which was rightly and thoroughly discredited. I would speculate that the writer of this passage is bastardizing that source, though Wolfe was, at least, a far better prose stylist than whoever wrote this execrable screed. I appreciate that these passages should not be considered in terms of reality, and that we need to limit our focus to what the text says, and no more. But there may be a limit to one's ability to suspend disbelief. After all, I was under the impression that works of fiction were not featured in the RC section. (I was dying to know where they got this passage, but unfortunately there are no credits provided.)
Taken together, all these facts leave one uncertain about where, exactly, the test-makers' intentions, and deficiencies, lie. Accordingly, when evaluating the answers one cannot discern whether (A) is problematic because the test-writers are naive about the subject matter (in which they should not be presuming to dabble), or if the outrageous falsity of "failure" is a hint that the answer is no bueno. When the oblivious is layered upon the stupid, it's naturally difficult to disentangle those layers in order to do the work of isolating, identifying, and eliminating the flaws and inconsistencies in the answer choices.
That's not exactly what I'd call a "failure" of a school of design. In fact, modern architecture could be considered the most successful style of architecture in the history of the world. It's possible, of course, to interpret the word "failure" as "decline," but even then the inescapable, patently obvious reality is that modern architecture is omnipresent still, and shows no signs of going away anytime soon. Find me a building taller than six stories being built, right now, anywhere in the world that isn't modern or modern-derived. There has been no failure, and no decline.
Meanwhile, the word's overt meaning is something quite different from "decline," so its use here is either a very cheap attempt to use the ambiguities of connotation to make a problem more difficult, or it's an example of editorial bungling by people who don't understand the meaning of words or don't have a baseline awareness of the made world that surrounds them.
There's also the problem that the passage itself is tendentious and factually insupportable, in real-world terms. Tom Wolfe entertained a similarly fatuous thesis in his vastly underwhelming "From Bauhaus to Our House," which was rightly and thoroughly discredited. I would speculate that the writer of this passage is bastardizing that source, though Wolfe was, at least, a far better prose stylist than whoever wrote this execrable screed. I appreciate that these passages should not be considered in terms of reality, and that we need to limit our focus to what the text says, and no more. But there may be a limit to one's ability to suspend disbelief. After all, I was under the impression that works of fiction were not featured in the RC section. (I was dying to know where they got this passage, but unfortunately there are no credits provided.)
Taken together, all these facts leave one uncertain about where, exactly, the test-makers' intentions, and deficiencies, lie. Accordingly, when evaluating the answers one cannot discern whether (A) is problematic because the test-writers are naive about the subject matter (in which they should not be presuming to dabble), or if the outrageous falsity of "failure" is a hint that the answer is no bueno. When the oblivious is layered upon the stupid, it's naturally difficult to disentangle those layers in order to do the work of isolating, identifying, and eliminating the flaws and inconsistencies in the answer choices.
2 posts Page 1 of 1