Q16 - The top prize in architecture...

[turketry]

I was down to A and D on this one, and chose D, wrongly. I see why A is right, but I'm having a hard time seeing why D is wrong. Isn't the author saying because science and architecture are disanalogous (one relies on individual achievement; the other on teamwork), the characteristics of science (individual achievement) are not relevant in justifying a conclusion about architecture (namely, who is the best architect)?

Please help.

[dmsqlc1121]

I was down to A and D on this one, and chose D, wrongly. I see why A is right, but I'm having a hard time seeing why D is wrong. Isn't the author saying because science and architecture are disanalogous (one relies on individual achievement; the other on teamwork), the characteristics of science (individual achievement) are not relevant in justifying a conclusion about architecture (namely, who is the best architect)?

Please help.

I think (D) is phrased intentionally to confuse us and I definitely paused for (D) while I was taking the timed PT.

The conclusion of the argument is,
"it would be better if the top prize in architecture were awarded to the best building rather than the best architect"


WHY?

because they are analogous to movies (that require teamwork rather than individual achievements, like scientific discoveries), which compete for awards for best picture, not best directors.


I see how easy it is to get caught up with the whole argument using analogous/disanalogous situations, but the most important thing is to pay close attention to what the conclusion is saying. (D) basically shifts our conclusion to something else, by saying the core of the argument is "the characteristics of one field are not relevant to justifying a conclusion about the other."



Hope this helps!

[rinagoldfield]

Great response, dmsqlc1121 !

A good strategy for this kind of question is to plug the concrete terms from the stimulus into the abstract answer choices. Then see what’s a match.
Here, our concrete variables are architecture, scientific discoveries, movies, and a prescription as to how architecture should award its prizes. If we plug these variables into the choices we get:

(A) Architects should award their prizes in a certain way because architecture is similar to movies and dissimilar from science.

Ding! That sounds like the argument!

(B) Architecture and movies are different, so architecture is more valuable???

Hmm. This one doesn’t seem right. The abstract language doesn’t graft well to the concrete stuff in the argument.

(C) Architecture and movies are similar, so criticisms of movies can also be applied to architecture.

The first part sounds good, but the second part isn’t right. The argument isn’t about criticisms.

(D) Architecture and science are different, so the science isn’t a good model for justifying the way architecture does its thing.

This is very tempting!! It fits well into the argument… but it doesn’t ultimately capture the conclusion. The original conclusion is positive: architecture SHOULD do X. (D) doesn’t get all the way there, instead stopping at “science IS NOT a good model.”

(E) Architecture should not award prizes in a certain way because it would not be appropriate for movies to award prizes in that way?
This choice is also temping, but the author never says anything about something being inappropriate for science or movies.

Hope this helps!