One of my biggest challenges (especially with PPD ) has been how some questions are vague. Not in a way that requires critical thinking but rather in a confusing way. For example, this question in the practice exam:
A developer is determining the best building configuration for Lot 4B, a suburban plot in a cold climate. The lot is 150' x 100' and the maximum building footprint is 15,000 square feet. The owner's program requires a minimum of 48,500 square feet of office space.
To minimize heat loss in winter, which one of the following building configurations should the architect recommend?
I selected 120x120 square instead of 90x90 square because clearly 48,600 (90x90) was not enough for office space AND common spaces like restrooms which by code offices need to have. Am I wrong for thinking office space refers to just office space and not the entire building's program????
My issue with this question is that it claims the owner requires a minimum of 48,500 SF of office space.....When I started running the numbers the correct answer was 48,600. My issue is the owner needs 48,500 sf of office space, office space doesn't include common areas, corridors, restrooms and other spaces. Trying to think critically here 48,600 is not enough to accommodate office space AND corridors and other common spaces. I might be over thinking this but I think the wording is wrong. Now, if the owner needs a minimum of 48,500 SF of program .. I think it is safe to assume that includes office space plus corridors and other supporting spaces.
I feel these exams uses techniques for you to analyze and read between the lines, to think critically. However, they apply that to some questions but not others. I can not even count how many questions I've gotten wrong because the wording is so vague.
Please sign in to leave a comment.