The top prize in architecture, the Pritzker Prize, is awarded for individual achievement, like Nobel Prizes for science. But architects are judged by their buildings, and buildings are the result of teamwork. As achievements, buildings are not like scientific discoveries, but like movies, which compete for awards for best picture. Thus, it would be better if the top prize in architecture were awarded to the best building rather than the best architect.
The argument proceeds by
(A) reaching a conclusion about the way something should be done in one field on the basis of comparisons with corresponding practices in other fields
(B) making a distinction between two different types of objects in order to conclude that one has more inherent value than the other
(C) pointing to similarities between two practices as a basis for concluding that criticisms of one practice can rightly be applied to the other
(D) arguing that because two different fields are disanalogous, the characteristics of one field are not relevant to justifying a conclusion about the other
(E) contending that an action is inappropriate by presenting an argument that a corresponding action in an analogous case is inappropriate
A. Correct. This accurately reflects the argument's structure. The author compares architecture to both science and film, ultimately arguing that architecture is more like film. Because of this, awards in architecture should mirror film awards, which recognize the final product rather than the individual.
B. Incorrect. This option implies the argument is comparing the value of two specific items, like a diamond and a Pez dispenser, to show one is more valuable. That’s not the approach used here.
C. Incorrect. This describes a method where a criticism is applied to two areas based on a shared flaw (e.g., cheating and using family connections). The argument doesn’t use this kind of moral reasoning or parallel criticism.
D. Incorrect. While "disanalogous" means the two things being compared are different, this choice misrepresents the point. The argument doesn’t reject science as a basis for comparison outright; rather, it uses the contrast with science to argue that architecture should be treated more like film.
E. Incorrect. This suggests the argument claims that a practice accepted in one field is inappropriate in another. However, the author actually supports the practices within each field—science prizes for individuals, film prizes for the final product—and uses those comparisons to argue for how architecture awards should be handled.
