- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:18 pm
#33753
Complete Question Explanation
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
The author of this stimulus recommends a different practice for awarding the Pritzker Prize, which is the top prize in the field of architecture. This prize rewards individual achievement, like a Nobel Prize for science. But the author tells us that buildings are less like scientific discoveries than like movies: they are not individual achievements but rather the result of teamwork. And, unlike a Nobel Prize for an individual achievement in science, movies compete for awards for best picture. Accordingly, the author concludes that rather than being awarded to the best architect, architecture’s top prize should be awarded to the best building.
This is a Method of Reasoning question. Our task is to select the answer choice that best describes how the author reached the conclusion. In this case, the author compared the practice of awarding a top prize in architecture to that of awarding a top prize in science and in film. Since the author concluded that a building is more like a movie than a scientific discovery, the conclusion was that architecture’s top prize should be awarded like that of the film industry rather than that of the scientific field. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will describe the author’s comparison of how awards for excellence are determined in different fields, and the conclusion that a certain field’s award should be determined as in one field rather than another.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, and it closely tracks the prephrase. The “way something should be done in one field” refers to the way in which architecture’s top prize should be awarded. And the “corresponding practices in other fields” refers to the way in which top prizes are awarded in the fields of science and film.
Answer choice (B): The argument in the stimulus did not reach a conclusion about the comparative, inherent value of objects, but rather which process for rewarding excellence is more appropriate.
Answer choice (C): While it is true that the argument did point to similarities between two practices, the conclusion had nothing to do with the application of criticism.
Answer choice (D): Here, the argument’s conclusion did not result from the determination that two different fields are disanalogous, or dissimilar. Rather, the conclusion resulted from the idea that the creation of a building and the creation of a film are similar in some way.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect because the argument did not conclude that something was inappropriate. Rather, the conclusion was that one practice was better than another.
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
The author of this stimulus recommends a different practice for awarding the Pritzker Prize, which is the top prize in the field of architecture. This prize rewards individual achievement, like a Nobel Prize for science. But the author tells us that buildings are less like scientific discoveries than like movies: they are not individual achievements but rather the result of teamwork. And, unlike a Nobel Prize for an individual achievement in science, movies compete for awards for best picture. Accordingly, the author concludes that rather than being awarded to the best architect, architecture’s top prize should be awarded to the best building.
This is a Method of Reasoning question. Our task is to select the answer choice that best describes how the author reached the conclusion. In this case, the author compared the practice of awarding a top prize in architecture to that of awarding a top prize in science and in film. Since the author concluded that a building is more like a movie than a scientific discovery, the conclusion was that architecture’s top prize should be awarded like that of the film industry rather than that of the scientific field. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will describe the author’s comparison of how awards for excellence are determined in different fields, and the conclusion that a certain field’s award should be determined as in one field rather than another.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, and it closely tracks the prephrase. The “way something should be done in one field” refers to the way in which architecture’s top prize should be awarded. And the “corresponding practices in other fields” refers to the way in which top prizes are awarded in the fields of science and film.
Answer choice (B): The argument in the stimulus did not reach a conclusion about the comparative, inherent value of objects, but rather which process for rewarding excellence is more appropriate.
Answer choice (C): While it is true that the argument did point to similarities between two practices, the conclusion had nothing to do with the application of criticism.
Answer choice (D): Here, the argument’s conclusion did not result from the determination that two different fields are disanalogous, or dissimilar. Rather, the conclusion resulted from the idea that the creation of a building and the creation of a film are similar in some way.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect because the argument did not conclude that something was inappropriate. Rather, the conclusion was that one practice was better than another.
