Q23 - Historians of North American

[dtangie23]

This one is troubling me. I chose (E) because it reinforces the idea that the larger houses were for the rich.

The correct answer is (C). Can we please go over this? Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

First of all, (C) is not the correct answer -- make sure you're using the right answer key!

Second of all, one key on tough LR questions is to be very clear about your task, and, always, to be very clear about the conclusion.

In this case, your task is not to reinforce the idea big houses were for the rich - we know this. Your job is to strengthen the argument, which is that narrow floor boards must have been a symbol of wealth since they show up in mostly rich folks' houses.

The first gap you'd probably notice here is that there might be another reason the rich folks use those narrow floorboards--maybe they worked better structurally in big houses. Or, maybe, those rich people got rich because they were cheap! So, we need to deal with these gaps. But, there's also a lurking assumption: that using narrow floorboards is actually more expensive! We would want to validate that assumption.

The correct answer, (B), does this, albeit in a rather "LSAT" way, by telling us that narrow floor boards were NOT less expensive than wide floorboards. The inference here is that it would cost more to floor your house with narrow floorboards if they cost the same or more than wide ones (since you'd need more narrow ones to cover a given space).

Thus, as narrow floorboards, overall, are a more expensive flooring option, the idea that they are a symbol of wealth is strengthened.

See it?

As for the wrong answers:

(A) weakens the argument! This is another way to explain why we see more small floorboards--it's mostly those big houses that have survived.

(C) is irrelevant--the number of rooms relates to the size of the floorboards how?

(D) is confusing, but essentially irrelevant. Who cares if there were some (i.e. at least one) houses with a combo of floorboards? We're talking about overall trends.

(E) is very tempting! This seems to be saying "the rich folks used more expensive flooring--so, they must have used more expensive floorboards." However, notice how the answer remains vague about what type of flooring was expensive. Perhaps it's referring to some marble in the foyer. That marble doesn't tell us anything about the narrow floorboards and why they're there; in fact, it just as easily could be used to show that the rich folks had blown all their money on the marble and so had to go with cheap floorboards.

[dtangie23]

Yes. Got it. Thanks for the clear explanation. Apologies for citing the wrong answer.

[pistachio2014]

Hi. I'm still a little confused on this one. I chose (A) since I thought that the narrow floorboards might have been better quality, thus have a higher chance of survival. Looking back, the characteristic of quality might be out of scope.

My question with (B) is that the narrow floorboards was not significantly less expensive than the wide floorboards--couldn't this mean that they were the same price?

I know that if I negated the answer choice (B)--although negating the answer choice is a method for assumption questions and this one is a strengthen question-- it would read that narrow floorboards were a lot less expensive than wide floorboards it would totally kill the argument.

Please clarify. Thank you!

[bbirdwell]

Using a negation method can be effective to get you out of a bind on strengthen/weaken and make a good guess, though it's not entirely reliable because the negation of strengthen choice won't always weaken and vice versa. That's an innovative way of looking at this, though!

Your question comes down to simple math. Even if the narrow floorboards are the SAME price as the wide floorboards, it's still going to be more expensive to cover the floor of your house with them because, since they are narrower, you'll need more of them.

They just can't be LESS expensive than the wide ones, which is why the choice is phrased that way.

[geverett]

Interesting question. I chose A b/c to me it strengthened the idea that they were a status symbol since they might've been preserved for this reason. However, the word in the answer choice which is used is "survived". That's too ambiguous. Survived could have just meant there were less house fires in bigger houses or any other number of things. Interesting question.

[bbirdwell]

Assuming that b/c something exists it might have been preserved as a status symbol? You know that's too imaginative for the LSAT! Get dry and literal

[geverett]

So challenging for creatives to be dry and literal. Also, the use of "not significantly less expensive" has also thrown me off before because real world use of the term could lead one to believe it is still less expensive. I've seen it used in this somewhat deceptive way before as well. thoughts?

[bbirdwell]

This choice is strengthening the argument, albeit in a rather weak way, by ruling out a potential objection or flaw.

If those narrow boards WERE "significantly LESS expensive," then the connection between floorboards and wealth would seem to be reversed, and thus the argument's conclusion false.

For that matter, any piece of evidence, or contrast/comparison needs to be "significant" to be used logically, doesn't it? You could just ignore it, as if it were a fluff word. "Insignificant" differences wouldn't matter much...

[geverett]

Makes sense. If something it not significant then it's insignificant, negligible, etc.

[eairwin3us]

I'm having trouble seeing why E is incorrect. Is it because "some floors" were made of expensive materials? I also have a feeling that it wasn't specific enough in just citing materials.

Also, B says that a narrow floorboard was "not significantly less expensive". Doesn't this mean that it could be less expensive, thus weakening the argument and making E the better answer?

I know there's something I'm missing so thanks for your help and time in advance.
Eric

[americano1990]

I took a slightly different approach in choosing the correct answer: (B)

As soon as I read the stimulus, I thought "false choice" because there may be many others reasons that the rich ppl (on average) are opting for the narrower version of the floorboards that does not have anything to do with status symbol, but the historian simply concludes that status symbol is the reason without eliminating other possible reasons.

So thats why (B) can strengthen the answer, by eliminating a potential motivation other than the status symbol that had prompted the rich people to go for the narrower versions: that is, it excludes the possibility that rich people chose the narrow ones simply because they were significantly cheaper.

What do you guys think?

[noah]

I took a slightly different approach in choosing the correct answer: (B)

As soon as I read the stimulus, I thought "false choice" because there may be many others reasons that the rich ppl (on average) are opting for the narrower version of the floorboards that does not have anything to do with status symbol, but the historian simply concludes that status symbol is the reason without eliminating other possible reasons.

So thats why (B) can strengthen the answer, by eliminating a potential motivation other than the status symbol that had prompted the rich people to go for the narrower versions: that is, it excludes the possibility that rich people chose the narrow ones simply because they were significantly cheaper.

What do you guys think?

I think that's solid reasoning.

[griffin.811]

I'm having trouble seeing why E is incorrect. Is it because "some floors" were made of expensive materials? I also have a feeling that it wasn't specific enough in just citing materials.

Also, B says that a narrow floorboard was "not significantly less expensive". Doesn't this mean that it could be less expensive, thus weakening the argument and making E the better answer?

I know there's something I'm missing so thanks for your help and time in advance.
Eric

So E is incorrect because it may actually weaken our argument. If many of the biggest houses were constructed with floors made of considerably more expensive materials like marble, etc... then maybe it was these materials that were the symbols of one's status. Not the less expensive wood.

B is correct because it eliminates a line of reasoning that may weaken our argument (the fact that thin wood may have been considerably cheaper than the thick wood), thereby strengthening our argument.

Its true that this thinner wood may still be cheaper than the thick wood (B does not eliminate this), but in knowing that it isn't considerably cheaper, we are one step closer to being able to soundly draw the conclusion drawn in the passage.

We don't need to prove here, simply taking away one factor that could be used to argue against our line of reasoning will suffice.

[Mw22390]

I didn't find the math part necessary to arrive at the conclusion. Simply ruling out that the floor boards weren't significantly less expensive boosted the argument by ruling out that the narrow floor boards weren't significantly less expensive. It does nothing more. Even if it can't be determined whether the floor boards were more, equally, or even less expensive, we know that they weren't significantly less expensive and that boosts the arguments ever so slightly. Dry and literal

[christine.defenbaugh]

I didn't find the math part necessary to arrive at the conclusion. Simply ruling out that the floor boards weren't significantly less expensive boosted the argument by ruling out that the narrow floor boards weren't significantly less expensive. It does nothing more. Even if it can't be determined whether the floor boards were more, equally, or even less expensive, we know that they weren't significantly less expensive and that boosts the arguments ever so slightly. Dry and literal

You have a great point Mw22390!


As bbirdwell points out above, the negation test is not a perfect instrument for assessing strengthen/weaken answers. However, in this case, the correct answer is written in the negative - it removes a possibility. So it's absolutely worthwhile to examine the removed possibility.

If the floorboards were significantly less expensive, this would undermine the claim that they must have been used as a status symbol. Removing this possible objection, or potential weakener, necessarily strengthens the conclusion regardless of what other possibilities it leaves on the table.

The math aspect, while not strictly necessary, is useful to show some of those possibilities, and how they might be good or bad for the conclusion. The critical takeaway from that analysis is that strengtheners do not have to make the argument airtight. Far from it! They simply must move us a bit down the road toward it.

[WaltGrace1983]

So E is incorrect because it may actually weaken our argument. If many of the biggest houses were constructed with floors made of considerably more expensive materials like marble, etc... then maybe it was these materials that were the symbols of one's status. Not the less expensive wood.

B is correct because it eliminates a line of reasoning that may weaken our argument (the fact that thin wood may have been considerably cheaper than the thick wood), thereby strengthening our argument.

Its true that this thinner wood may still be cheaper than the thick wood (B does not eliminate this), but in knowing that it isn't considerably cheaper, we are one step closer to being able to soundly draw the conclusion drawn in the passage.

We don't need to prove here, simply taking away one factor that could be used to argue against our line of reasoning will suffice.

I don't think (E) would strengthen OR weaken the argument actually. It simply doesn't give us any reason to believe that there is a connection between the narrower wood and the status symbol idea.

It doesn't strengthen because (E) doesn't tell us why certain types of wood widthwould be emblematic of status. It shows us that maybe marble or the other "considerably more expensive materials" used for flooring MIGHT be a status symbol but that doesn't affect what we know about wood width and status.

It doesn't weaken because of the same reason. What is going on with marble flooring has little to do with the status symbol of wood flooring.

What (E) is essentially saying is that "big houses sometimes used more expensive flooring, like marble." But so what?

Other incorrect answers

(A) No relevance. The question is, "were they a status symbol?"

(C) Room size? Who cares?

(D) This WOULD actually weaken, I believe. If the narrow floorboards were COVERED, it might make one believe that they were then actually NOT a status symbol.

[yeun2]

I know it's been quite awhile but no one has really replied to pistachio2014's question about why A is wrong. I had the same thought process as her/him that the longer lasting floorboards implied that they were of better quality and thus more expensive. I understand why B is correct but am having a hard time eliminating A.

Thanks in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

In order to make the "better quality" inference you're trying to make from (A), we would need to know that "original floorboards from bigger houses were more likely to survive".

(A) is phrased in a way that just addresses the raw number.

Maybe there are more big house floorboards because they were higher quality.
Maybe there are more because there were just more big houses.

Or, most likely, maybe there are more because the ones used in bigger houses were more narrow. Thus, you would have to use more of them to cover the same floor.

Since you might need 20 narrow floorboards to cover the same space as 10 wide floorboards, even if both types were equally durable, you'd end up with more narrow floorboards surviving.