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.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly