Logical Reasoning

PT141 · S2 · Q16 The top prize in architecture

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The top prize in architecture, the Pritzker Prize, is awarded for individual achievement, like Nobel Prizes for science.

Background

The Pritzker Prize is given to individual architects (like Nobel Prizes for science).

Premise

Architects are judged by their buildings, and buildings are made by teams.

Premise (analogy)

Buildings are not like scientific discoveries — they're like movies, which compete for "best picture" awards (given to the work, not the individual).

Conclusion

The architecture prize would be better awarded to the best building, not the best architect.

Method

The argument compares architecture to two other fields (science, film), notes that buildings are like movies and unlike scientific discoveries, and uses the movie comparison to argue architecture should follow film's practice (award the work, not the individual).

Goal

An answer describing this method: reaching a conclusion about how something should be done in one field by comparing it to corresponding practices in other fields.

16.

The argument proceeds by

  1. Correct

    reaching a conclusion about the

    Why this is right

    This describes the method exactly. The argument concludes how architecture (one field) should award its prize, based on comparisons with how science and film (other fields) award theirs. "Reaching a conclusion about the way something should be done in one field on the basis of comparisons with corresponding practices in other fields" — that's precisely the move.

    Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    81% picked this

  2. making a distinction between two

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The argument doesn't conclude that one type of object has more "inherent value" than another. It concludes how the architecture prize should be awarded. The argument is about prize practice, not about value rankings of objects.

    2% picked this

  3. pointing to similarities between two

    Bad Description

    The argument isn't saying criticisms of one practice apply to another. It's saying architecture should adopt film's prize practice. There's no transfer of criticism — there's a transfer of practice.

    7% picked this

  4. arguing that because two different

    Bad Description

    The argument doesn't conclude that fields are disanalogous, leading to no relevance. It actually relies on the analogy with film (architecture is like film) to argue for a conclusion. Fields being disanalogous is part of the setup (architecture vs. science) but not the conclusion's basis.

    7% picked this

  5. contending that an action is

    Bad Description

    The argument isn't saying one action is "inappropriate." It's arguing for a better way to award the prize. There's no claim that something is wrong by analogy to a wrong thing in another field.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free