PT24.S3.Q23

contradiction504

I don't understand how B is correct. It states that "a piece of narrow floorboard was NOT SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE than a piece of wide floorboard'." However, how does that translate to narrow boards being more expensive--which I believe would make narrow boards a status symbol. Going by the phrasing- they could be only a little less expensive, or simply the same price. Please help and earn my eternal lsat blessings

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-23/

Nomads Poem

CONCLUSION: Floors made out of narrow floorboards were probably once a STATUS symbol...
P: People w/ bigger houses (hence narrower floors) tended to be richer.

The argument gives you a phenomenon/hypothesis stimulus
& here, they're speculating that the narrow floorboards were for STATUS/ show off wealth.
I spotted a couple things going on here
1) it seems the argument is assuming using narrower boards were more expensive than using wider floorboards.
2) there are other ways narrower floors may have been more appealing to the rich than for STATUS (i.e. price (maybe they actually like cheap things), visual appearance, just personal preference, etc).

Here's where you want to be careful. This is a STRENGTHEN question, not sufficient assumption.
From the way you asked your question, it seems you're hunting for a SA type answer and are perhaps caught off guard by answer choice (B) which reads more like a Necessary Assumption.

The AC just serves to rule out the possibility that CHEAP PRICE was the reason the rich used the narrower boards and not status. The boards were at the very LEAST similarly priced which still means narrower boards can be cheaper but not by much.
So although this doesn't guarantee the conclusion as a sufficient assumption would, (B) still strengthens by reducing the possibility the PRICE was the reason for the use of narrower floorboards.

I hope this helps!

contradiction504

Thanks so much!
Yes, it does help:)