Q6 - Classical Roman architecture is

[tzyc]

Is (A) wrong because althought the argument makes generalization component A + component B→the mixed good always have both components, (A) says general→component (kind of reverse)?

Thanks.

[timmydoeslsat]

This is one of many flawed manners of reasoning that we want to be able to instantly spot.

Qualities that are characteristic of an item do not necessarily transfer over when two items are combined.

In this example, sure we know that Classic Roman architecture is beautiful, but is that still the case when you combine it with the postmodern stuff? At that point, it may look hideous together. Think of great looking pants and a great looking shirt that look terrible together.

Those great looking pants and that great looking shirt do not have to necessarily turn into a great looking outfit.

This is what C is talking about. The fact that the attributes of the pants may be lost in the mix when forming a new combination item.

Answer choice A is a different kind of flaw, which is known as the whole-to-part flaw. This type of flaw is when you have a rectangular shaped wall and you believe that each part that makes up the wall is rectangular. Or that a sturdy chair must be made up of sturdy pieces.

This is not the kind of flaw being committed here. We have what can be known as a combination of attributes flaw.

[shirando21]

ha, I like your example of beautiful pants and top look terrible together. vivid and interesting.

[t-haga-k42]

Hello,

If possible, could anyone please explain how this problem would not be a whole-to-part flaw (as stated in the reply above) and why A. is incorrect?
Doesn't the author presume that for an architect to be "both beautiful and dramatic" it needs to consist the parts "classical Roman" and "postmodern"?
I'd deeply appreciate it if anyone could help me resolve this question.

(Hope I'm not too late in posting a question on this discussion)

[ohthatpatrick]

(A) is just wrong because it confuses the concepts of "sufficient" and "necessary".

The author is arguing
IF you're combining a beautiful component and a dramatic component, you'll end up with a beautiful and dramatic style.

(A) is describing an argument that sounds like
If you're NOT combining a beautiful component and a dramatic component, you'll never end up with a style that is beautiful and dramatic.