Q6 - Wood-frame houses withstand

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting, and for explaining your reasoning!

So, we're told that wood-frame houses are much better at withstanding earthquakes than masonry houses, but that a recent earthquake destroyed a wood-frame house and not its neighboring masonry house.

We're asked to explain this result. Now, your point about probabilities vs. one isolated incident is well taken; it's true that this one result doesn't disprove the premise that wood-frame houses are sturdier in a quake. But that fact doesn't explain the result of the earthquake in question, that is, it doesn't help us understand why this wood-frame house was destroyed even as the neighboring masonry house stayed standing.

Either way, answer (A) doesn't actually have anything to do with the probability-vs.-anecdote issue. Whether wood-frame houses are more common, less common, equally common, or whatever has precisely zero bearing on whether "percentages may still be accurate," as you put it; moreover, because we're explicitly told in the premise that wood-frame houses hold up better than masonry ones, the accuracy of that claim isn't even in question. It's given as a fact.

Answer (C), on the other hand, helps explain the result of the earthquake because if the walls of the wood-frame house were once damaged in a flood, it's likely that their ability to withstand earthquakes was diminished. You're right that this isn't a 100% watertight* explanation, but it gets us much further than any of the other answers. And it's really a small jump to infer that walls damaged by flooding would be structurally weaker.

(B) is wrong for exactly the same reason that (A) is wrong. This tells us nothing about why the wood house collapsed!

(D) is tempting, but it's too big a leap to go from "more expensive" to "sturdier." The inference required for answer (C), that damaged walls are less able to withstand an earthquake, is much more justified.

(E) is sort of superfluous, since we're already told in the stimulus that at least one house collapsed.

Does that answer your question? Please let me know if you still think (A) is just as valid as (C).


*no pun intended


#officialexplanation

[danielalfino]

I understand that an answer for this question does not have to be found directly in the prompt, but how is C more correct than A? To me, both require further assumptions for either to help explain the results of the earthquake. In C, one must assume that flood-damaged walls affect their ability to handle lateral forces, and for A, one must assume that since there are a greater number of wood-frame houses than masonry houses, percentages may still be accurate despite the isolated occurrence referenced in the prompt.

How can I tell which assumption is less significant in the future?

[goriano]

Thanks for posting, and for explaining your reasoning!

So, we're told that wood-frame houses are much better at withstanding earthquakes than masonry houses, but that a recent earthquake destroyed a wood-frame house and not its neighboring masonry house.

We're asked to explain this result. Now, your point about probabilities vs. one isolated incident is well taken; it's true that this one result doesn't disprove the premise that wood-frame houses are sturdier in a quake. But that fact doesn't explain the result of the earthquake in question, that is, it doesn't help us understand why this wood-frame house was destroyed even as the neighboring masonry house stayed standing.

Either way, answer (A) doesn't actually have anything to do with the probability-vs.-anecdote issue. Whether wood-frame houses are more common, less common, equally common, or whatever has precisely zero bearing on whether "percentages may still be accurate," as you put it; moreover, because we're explicitly told in the premise that wood-frame houses hold up better than masonry ones, the accuracy of that claim isn't even in question. It's given as a fact.

Answer (C), on the other hand, helps explain the result of the earthquake because if the walls of the wood-frame house were once damaged in a flood, it's likely that their ability to withstand earthquakes was diminished. You're right that this isn't a 100% watertight* explanation, but it gets us much further than any of the other answers. And it's really a small jump to infer that walls damaged by flooding would be structurally weaker.

(B) is wrong for exactly the same reason that (A) is wrong. This tells us nothing about why the wood house collapsed!

(D) is tempting, but it's too big a leap to go from "more expensive" to "sturdier." The inference required for answer (C), that damaged walls are less able to withstand an earthquake, is much more justified.

(E) is sort of superfluous, since we're already told in the stimulus that at least one house collapsed.

Does that answer your question? Please let me know if you still think (A) is just as valid as (C).


*no pun intended

I also understand why (C) is correct, but what about (B)? With B, I am imagining a scenario in which a wood frame house (W) is surrounded by several masonry houses (M) (stimulus doesn't clarify) as in the picture below:

MMM
MWM
MMM

I think (B) explains the paradox because what if 7 of the M's were destroyed and 1 W was destroyed, but the remaining M was undamaged?

MMM
MWM
MMM

The only problem I see with (B) is that it assumes we are in an earthquake-prone area, while the stimulus simply states a "recent earthquake" occurred. Is that enough to eliminate both (A) and (B)?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question! I love how you guys are focusing on really understanding the wrong answers.

So, check out what you wrote:

"I think (B) explains the paradox because what if 7 of the M's were destroyed and 1 W was destroyed, but the remaining M was undamaged?"

I caught you red-handed! (B) doesn't say 7 of the M's were destroyed, etc. -- you're adding that in to make it work! That's a big no-no, and when you find yourself adding additional information to justify an answer (which is especially tempting on these resolve-the-paradox questions), that's a good indication that the answer is incorrect. I mean, even if (B) is true, maybe actually all 8 of the M's were undamaged; now we're even more confused!

This is an important point so let me repeat: the information in the answer choice has to be enough by itself to contribute to a resolution of the paradox. If it could go either way depending on what outside information we add to it, then it's not a winner.

-----------------------------

Also, even if your hypothetical situation were true, it still wouldn't explain why this happened.

[minhtientm249]

Hello,

I don't still get why C is the answer. It doesn't explain why the masonry house did not collapse. The flood destroyed the wood-house, so what? What if the flood also destroyed the masonry house.

Also, is there any difference between the question type that ask to explain a result and reconcile a paradox?

Thank you very much

[timmydoeslsat]

Hello,

I don't still get why C is the answer. It doesn't explain why the masonry house did not collapse. The flood destroyed the wood-house, so what? What if the flood also destroyed the masonry house.

Also, is there any difference between the question type that ask to explain a result and reconcile a paradox?

Thank you very much

There is no difference between the two question types. Each question stem is asking how can the statements presented in the stimulus can be true, while on its face, seem contradictory.

In this stimulus, we would expect the wooden house to have stood while the masonry house fell.

But, the opposite occurred.

Choice C is telling us that this was an already vulnerable wooden house. The earthquake presumably was not that bad since the masonry house is still standing. So we really had just a atypical wooden house. Not representative of what wooden houses can really do in earthquakes.

[jamiejames]

Hello,

I don't still get why C is the answer. It doesn't explain why the masonry house did not collapse. The flood destroyed the wood-house, so what? What if the flood also destroyed the masonry house.

Also, is there any difference between the question type that ask to explain a result and reconcile a paradox?

Thank you very much

There is no difference between the two question types. Each question stem is asking how can the statements presented in the stimulus can be true, while on its face, seem contradictory.

In this stimulus, we would expect the wooden house to have stood while the masonry house fell.

But, the opposite occurred.

Choice C is telling us that this was an already vulnerable wooden house. The earthquake presumably was not that bad since the masonry house is still standing. So we really had just a atypical wooden house. Not representative of what wooden houses can really do in earthquakes.

With C, don't have we have to add in the assumption that the house was not fixed back to new after the storm? And what if the water damage was from 10 years ago and had since been fixed. I'm getting really frustrated when knowing how much of a gap is okay to bridge with my own knowledge, I.e. choice c being correct.

[jpchris3]

Hi,

I'm also still confused why A cannot be correct. It isn't 100% certain that every wood-frame house will survive in an earthquake If this is true, and if there are more wood houses than masonry houses in earth-quake prone areas, then it seems reasonable to conclude that one wood-frame house could be damaged out of many similar houses.

[shodges]

Hi,

I'm also still confused why A cannot be correct. It isn't 100% certain that every wood-frame house will survive in an earthquake If this is true, and if there are more wood houses than masonry houses in earth-quake prone areas, then it seems reasonable to conclude that one wood-frame house could be damaged out of many similar houses.

this is exactly my problem. Any help????????

I think it may have to do with the "earthquake-prone areas" specific part of the answer A. Who says that the area of the stimulus was actually an earthquake prone area??? that might be why choosing C is better since it concentrates on that one specific house

[chunsunb]

Here is my take on why (A) is wrong.

I think (A) is wrong because the result of the earthquake that is referred to in the passage is not pertaining to a population; rather, it pinpoints two particular houses next to each other, one wood-frame and one masonry.

On the other hand, suppose that the passage had said something like "in this area, there were 300 wood-frame houses that were destroyed, but only 200 masonry houses destroyed."

Then, answer (A) would explain the above (made-up) result: a smaller percentage of wood-frame houses may have been destroyed relative to that of the masonry houses, regardless of the actual number of each type of houses that were destroyed.

However, in the passage that we are given, we are trying to explain a different question: why is it that a wood-frame house was destroyed but a masonry house wasn't, even though they seemingly had the same characteristics in all other aspects (as indicated by the phrase "next door" in the text)?

The answer is to show that, in fact, they are not same in all different characteristics: namely, that the wood-frame house has once been damaged in flood, so it was more vulnerable to destruction by earthquake than was the comparable masonry house on the next door was.

Granted, I think the answer choice would have been a clearer choice of answer if the answer choice said, "the walls of wood-frame house had once been damaged in the flood, while the masonry house had not," since we are trying to look for a characteristic of the wood-frame house that was DIFferent drom the masonry house and that made the wood-frame house more vulnerable.

In the end, I think the key to solving many lsat questions is in correctly guessing what the author's intention of the question was. Here, I think the author wanted us to resolve the following dilemma: "why is it that a wood-frame house was destroyed but a masonry house wasn't, even though they seemingly had the same characteristics in all other aspects (as indicated by the phrase "next door" in the text)?" So, if you guessed that was the author's intention while reading the paragraph, you would realize that the answer of this question might answer the dilemma by saying that the premise of the dilemma was wrong, because they do NOT have the same characteristics in all other aspects.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great response and great example of a fake LSAT problem for which (A) would be a correct answer.

The rationale that a couple posters were using, which was that "wood-frame houses are BETTER at withstanding earthquakes, but not IMPERVIOUS" is totally true, but you don't need an answer choice to give you that rationale.

It's not a riddle to ask, "How is it possible that a wood-frame house was destroyed?", because we already know the answer to that: no one ever said that wood-frame houses never get destroyed by earthquakes.

The riddle centers more specifically on these neighboring houses: one wooden, one masonry. Seemingly they're exposed to equal earthquake force, so we would expect them to both fall, both stand, or just the masonry one to fall.

The skewed numbers of (A) and (B) are irrelevant to our paradox, which is focused on a head-to-head between two adjacent houses.

The other recurring concern is that (C), as stated, does not completely explain why the wood, not the masonry house fell. As people have correctly stated, we would need to know that the masonry home was not equivalently damaged in the flood. We would need to know that the wood home was not repaired following the flood.

To this concern, I must remind you that our question task is "most helps to explain" not "completely explains". Answers in the world of Strengthen, Weaken, and Resolve/Explain aren't perfect, lock-it-in answers. They're always still vulnerable to counterarguments, exceptions.

We are only meant to judge whether they SOMEWHAT take us in the direction of believing something more or less.

(C) contributes more to a possible explanation of why this wood house went down than does any other answer choice. That's the standard by which we're judging it and picking it.

I will say that even though outside knowledge is not required on the LSAT, your real-world common sense can assist you in picking (C). I'm not sure I know for sure what masonry houses are, but I'm assuming we're talking about houses made of stone/rock vs. wood.

Well, first of all, it seems like wood is way more porous and thus vulnerable to water damage than stone, so it seems reasonable to think that flood waters could damage wood more than stone.

Secondly, it seems unlikely that you could 'repair' a structurally weakened wooden frame to a house. I think you'd have to raze the house and start fresh. How can you repair the most fundamental interior layer of the house's construction? There's no way to swap out the wet, damaged wood for fresh wood without the whole house crumbling due to lack of supporting walls.

So the story (C) presents is by no means airtight, but it's a very reasonable one, supported by common sense.





Also, I want to print this on a poster or T-shirt, because it's true, if not brilliant:
"In the end, I think the key to solving many lsat questions is in correctly guessing what the author's intention of the question was."

[GnidaP757]

Previously, people lived in dilapidated houses that did not differ in reliability and comfort. With every century, mankind has come up with new ways to make their life more comfortable. Some built castles, and some were satisfied with a small house, but nowadays everything has changed. People have a huge number of different options for where they live. I personally prefer Pre-Construction Condos Toronto
Why? Condos have the highest level of comfort! As soon as I moved into my brand new condo, I was amazed. I advise you to think about moving)

[ChloeC62]

Thanks for posting, and for explaining your reasoning!

So, we're told that wood-frame houses are much better at withstanding earthquakes than masonry houses, but that a recent earthquake destroyed a wood-frame house and not its neighboring masonry house.

We're asked to explain this result. Now, your point about probabilities vs. one isolated incident is well taken; it's true that this one result doesn't disprove the premise that wood-frame houses are sturdier in a quake. But that fact doesn't explain the result of the earthquake in question, that is, it doesn't help us understand why this wood-frame house was destroyed even as the neighboring masonry house stayed standing.

Either way, answer (A) doesn't actually have anything to do with the probability-vs.-anecdote issue. Whether wood-frame houses are more common, less common, equally common, or whatever has precisely zero bearing on whether "percentages may still be accurate," as you put it; moreover, because we're explicitly told in the premise that wood-frame houses hold up better than masonry ones, the accuracy of that claim isn't even in question. It's given as a fact.

Answer (C), on the other hand, helps explain the result of the earthquake because if the walls of the wood-frame house were once damaged in a flood, it's likely that their ability to withstand earthquakes was diminished. You're right that this isn't a 100% watertight* explanation, but it gets us much further than any of the other answers. And it's really a small jump to infer that walls damaged by flooding would be structurally weaker.

(B) is wrong for exactly the same reason that (A) is wrong. This tells us nothing about why the wood house collapsed!

(D) is tempting, but it's too big a leap to go from "more expensive" to "sturdier." The inference required for answer (C), that damaged walls are less able to withstand an earthquake, is much more justified.

(E) is sort of superfluous, since we're already told in the stimulus that at least one house collapsed.

Does that answer your question? Please let me know if you still think (A) is just as valid as (C).


*no pun intended


#officialexplanation

can you further explain or clarify probability vs anecdote issue