Critical Reasoning

A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobtrusive, taking second place to the total environment. Modern architects, plagued by egoism, have violated this precept. They have let their strong personalities take over their work, producing buildings that are not functional for public use.

Which one of the statements below follows logically from the statements in the passage?

(A) Unobtrusive architecture is both inviting and functional.
(B) Modern architects who let their strong personalities take over their work produce buildings that are not unobtrusive.
(C) An architect with a strong personality cannot produce buildings that functional well for the public.
(D) A work of architecture that takes second place to the environment functions well for public use.
(E) A work of architecture cannot simultaneously express its architect's personality and be functional for public use.

logically follows from the statements in the passage means something that must be true based on the stimulus.

B follows from the stimulus.

E does not. Here you are assuming that egoist Architects are represntaive of Architects in general.

The statement that should logically follow should talk about modern architects or their work. 'E' talks about the work of all the architects and not of modern architects.

can someone explain why A is wrong?
My perception is that A simply repeats what has been stated, and not logically
making a deductive reasoning.

Some thoughts have it that A reverses the line of reasoning, is this true?

gmatdriller wrote:can someone explain why A is wrong?
My perception is that A simply repeats what has been stated, and not logically
making a deductive reasoning.

Some thoughts have it that A reverses the line of reasoning, is this true?

The first premise of the passage is: "If a work of architecture is to be both inviting and functional for public use it must be unobtrusive".

(A) "Unobtrusive architecture is both inviting and functional." Incorrect. According to the premise, for architecture to be inviting and functional it must be unobtrusive. This doesn't mean that all unobtrusive architecture is inviting and functional. Some architecture may be unobtrusive but not inviting or functional for other reasons.

Hope this helps...

hi Rkanthilal,
I agree with your explanation, which is similar to saying:
from the stem(assuming to be true): If you are given $1million and an Estate, you MUST be happy.
Option A rephrases: If you are happy, you have $1million and an estate...
not necessarily; one could be happy for other reasons, wrong.

By the same token, if inviting and functional REQUIRES that an architecture be unobtrusive
it is NOT necessarily reversible that, unobtrusive REQUIRES inviting and functional..