Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaApplication of Principles

Principle: A restoration architect should replace a damaged structural element of a historic building, rather than repairing it, only if repairing the element would cost more than replacing it. Whenever replacing such an element, the architect must use historically accurate materials, unless those materials are no longer legally obtainable, in which case modern substitute materials must be used.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle stated above?

  1. The town hall's damaged wooden roof trusses would cost exactly the same to repair as they would to replace. Therefore, the architect should repair the trusses rather than replacing them.Cevap
  2. B
    The library's damaged copper structural supports would cost more to repair than to replace, and historically accurate copper is legally obtainable. Therefore, the architect should replace the supports using historically accurate copper.
  3. C
    The chapel's damaged stone foundations would cost less to repair than to replace. However, historically accurate stone is no longer legally obtainable. Therefore, the architect should replace the foundations using modern substitute materials.
  4. D
    The train station's damaged brick load-bearing walls must be replaced. Since some historically accurate bricks are no longer legally obtainable, the architect must use modern substitute materials for this project.
  5. E
    The historic courthouse's damaged decorative plasterwork would cost significantly more to repair than to replace. Therefore, if the architect replaces it, they must use historically accurate plaster unless it is legally unobtainable.

Cevap

The judgment concluding that the architect should repair the town hall's wooden roof trusses because the repair and replacement costs are identical.
The correct answer accurately applies the contrapositive of the principle's primary rule. The principle dictates that replacement can occur 'only if' repairing costs more. In this scenario, the cost to repair the wooden trusses is exactly the same as the cost to replace them. Because the cost is not 'more', the necessary condition for replacement has not been met. Therefore, the architect is logically prohibited from replacing the trusses and must repair them instead.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the primary conditional statement in the principle.
Replace -> (Cost to repair > Cost to replace).
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition. Higher repair cost is necessary for replacement, not sufficient.
2
Formulate the contrapositive of the primary rule.
If (Cost to repair <= Cost to replace) -> Do NOT replace (i.e., must repair).
Contrapositives are logically valid deductions and frequently the key to finding the correct application of a principle.
3
Deconstruct the secondary rule regarding materials.
If replacing -> Must use historical materials, UNLESS unobtainable (in which case, modern substitutes).
This establishes the boundaries for material usage, but only applies when the threshold for replacement has already been met.
4
Evaluate the options against these logical boundaries.
The scenario where costs are identical triggers the contrapositive of the first rule, mandating a repair.
Identical costs mean the repair does not cost 'more'. Thus, the necessary condition for replacement fails.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying Formal Logic (Necessary vs. Sufficient) and Recognizing Scope Boundaries
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Application of Principles

Bu konudan daha fazla soru