LSAT 101 – Section 3 – Question 23

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:19

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView
Type Tags Answer
Choices
Curve Question
Difficulty
Psg/Game/S
Difficulty
Explanation
PT101 S3 Q23
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
A
7%
163
B
62%
170
C
6%
164
D
7%
164
E
20%
165
152
163
174
+Hardest 146.901 +SubsectionMedium

Historians of North American architecture who have studied early nineteenth-century houses with wooden floors have observed that the boards used on the floors of bigger houses were generally much narrower than those used on the floors of smaller houses. These historians have argued that, since the people for whom the bigger houses were built were generally richer than the people for whom the smaller houses were built, floors made out of narrow floorboards were probably once a status symbol, designed to proclaim the owner’s wealth.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that in the early 19th century, floors made out of narrow floorboards were likely a status symbol designed to convey a homeowner’s wealth. This is based on the fact that bigger houses tended to use narrower floorboards than smaller houses, and that bigger houses tended to be built for people who were richer than those for whom smaller houses were built.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no more likely explanation for the use of narrower floorboards in the bigger houses besides the idea that the floorboards were status symbols. This overlooks the possibility that there may have been other reasonable explanations, such as stylistic trends associated with bigger houses, or perhaps narrower floor boards were more functional for bigger houses or were cheaper to use in bigger houses.

A
More original floorboards have survived from big early nineteenth-century houses than from small early nineteenth-century houses.
The comparative number of surviving floorboards has no clear impact. We have no reason to think that having more floor boards survive helps show that the narrower floorboards were used as a status symbol.
B
In the early nineteenth century, a piece of narrow floorboard was not significantly less expensive than a piece of wide floorboard of the same length.
This eliminates an alternate explanation that narrower boards were used because they were much cheaper. In theory, homeowners might have been trying to save by using boards that were much cheaper. (B) says that’s not true, which makes the status symbol hypothesis more plausible.
C
In the early nineteenth century, smaller houses generally had fewer rooms than did bigger houses.
The number of rooms doesn’t have a clear impact on the purpose of the narrower floorboards. (C) helps show that narrower floorboards, which were used in bigger houses, tended to be used for a greater number of rooms. That doesn’t signify anything about the boards’ purpose.
D
Some early nineteenth-century houses had wide floorboards near the walls of each room and narrower floorboards in the center, where the floors were usually carpeted.
If anything, (D) might weaken by suggesting owners wanted to hide the use of narrower floorboards, but wanted to show off wider boards. This goes against the theory that owners used narrower boards as status symbols.
E
Many of the biggest early nineteenth-century houses but very few small houses from that period had some floors that were made of materials that were considerably more expensive than wood, such as marble.
So, some owners of bigger houses used materials that were more expensive than wood. But that doesn’t suggest anything about the purpose of narrower wooden floorboards. Perhaps other materials were used a status symbol; narrower boards may or may not also be a status symbol.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply