LR Question 16 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: The top prize in architecture, the Pritzker Prize…
QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
CONCLUSION: We should award the architecture prize for the best building, rather than best architect.
REASONING: Architecture is like movies: buildings are made by teams, not individuals. We give awards for best picture.
ANALYSIS: This is an argument by analogy. There are two cases:
- Science, where Nobel prizes are awarded for individual work.
- Movie awards, which are given for the achievement itself. Movies are made by teams.
The argument says that architecture is similar to movies and unlike science.
___________
- CORRECT. This matches the stimulus. The author compares architecture to science and film. They say architecture is more like film, so we should give architecture awards like film awards.
- What two objects?
Example of method: This diamond is rare, while this pez dispenser is common. So the diamond is more valuable. - The author didn’t say there’s a criticism that should be applied to two fields.
Example of method: It’s wrong to cheat on the test because it gives you an unfair advantage. Using your family connections gives you an unfair advantage as well, so that’s also wrong. - “Disanalogous” means different. The two different fields are science vs. architecture/film.
This answer says that, because science is different, we can’t use science to draw conclusions about architecture. Nonsense!
The author used science to make their argument. They say that because architecture is different from science, we shouldn’t give architecture prizes like science prizes. - The argument didn’t say that an action in a corresponding field is inappropriate.
The corresponding fields were: science and film.
In each case, the author thought the action within that field was appropriate.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
As a definition of criticism is “the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work,” it seems that a question saying, “Art Form A is created in the same way as Art Form B, so A should be judged in contests of merit like B,” is literally about the criticisms of B being rightly applied A.
Not really sure how they justify using the word “criticisms” in one of the answers and saying it is incorrect.
Hi MB,
First, it’s unclear from the context of (C) that “criticism” refers to literary or artistic criticism. It just mentions criticism of a “practice”, so we’d have to default to the primary definition of criticism, which is simply “the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing” (Merriam-Webster).
Also, let’s breakdown (C). So, the first part checks out, the stimulus does indeed point out similarities between two practices. But, what about the part about “criticisms of one practice being applied to another”? Is the stimulus really saying that criticisms of film can be rightly applied to architecture? Even if we granted that “criticism” in (C) was defined in the way that you’d provided (and this is something we actually can’t grant based on the wording of the answer choice), it still seems that the stimulus is referring more to changing the general practices around granting awards than criticism per se.