LSAT 125 – Section 4 – Question 06

LSAT 125 - Section 4 - Question 06

June 2008

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:45

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
PT125 S4 Q06
+LR
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
A
2%
156
B
1%
155
C
90%
163
D
0%
157
E
7%
156
125
137
148
 +Easier 145.982 +SubsectionMedium

Wood-frame houses withstand earthquakes far better than masonry houses do, because wooden frames have some flexibility; their walls can better handle lateral forces. In a recent earthquake, however, a wood-frame house was destroyed, while the masonry house next door was undamaged.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the masonry house withstand the recent earthquake better than the adjacent wood-frame house, when wood-frame houses are generally better-equipped to withstand earthquakes?

Objective
Any hypothesis that will resolve this will need to explain why, in this certain situation, the two houses didn’t demonstrate what we know about masonry and wood-framed houses in general. The explanation must account for some quirk about the houses themselves that allowed the masonry house to withstand the earthquake better than the wood-frame house.

A
In earthquake-prone areas, there are many more wood-frame houses than masonry houses.
We need to know why the wood-frame houses didn’t perform as well as the masonry house, despite what we know about the two house types. We don’t care about how many houses there are in earthquake zones on average.
B
In earthquake-prone areas, there are many more masonry houses than wood-frame houses.
Same as with answer (A), we don’t care about earthquake zones in general. We need to know about these specific houses.
C
The walls of the wood-frame house had once been damaged in a flood.
If the walls of the wood-frame house had been damaged in a flood, its ability to withstand an earthquake would certainly be weakened. This explains why it didn’t hold up as well as the masonry house did.
D
The masonry house was far more expensive than the wood-frame house.
We don’t care how much the masonry house cost. A masonry house is still a masonry house, and those shouldn’t hold up as well as wood-frame houses during earthquakes.
E
No structure is completely impervious to the destructive lateral forces exerted by earthquakes.
Well, this would be true for both houses. We need something that explains why the wood-frame house underperformed versus the masonry house, given what we know about wood-frame and masonry houses in general.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 125 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply