Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S3 · Q23 Historians of North American architecture

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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.

Conclusion

Narrow floorboards in early-19th-century houses were probably a status symbol designed to proclaim wealth.

Evidence

Bigger houses (built for richer people) had narrower boards; smaller houses (built for poorer people) had wider boards.

Evaluate

The most common argument pattern on Strengthen / Weaken is Explain Curious Fact, so when the first sentence provides a Correlation (ppl with trait 1 were more likely to have trait 2), we're likely to get a causal explanation as our conclusion.

CURIOUS FACT: why are these correlated? Bigger houses || narrow floorboards Smaller houses || wider wider floorboards

EXPLANATION: Since we know that bigger houses were generally owned by richer people, the author speculates that the rich people sought out the narrow floorboards as a status symbol to flaunt their wealth.

As always, with this template, we need to consider 1. alternate explanations for the curious fact maybe bigger houses are just usually built with narrow floorboards for some structural reason

2. how plausible is the author's explanation do narrow floorboards cost more? are they coveted by the lower classes? do rich houseguests comment appreciatively about how narrow the floorboards are?

Goal

Let's look for an answer that strengthens the plausibility of the story that narrow floorboards were a luxury item that rich people would buy to brag about their wealth, or for an answer that undermines a different explanation for why bigger houses had narrower floorboards.

23.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the historians' argument?

  1. More original floorboards have survived

    No Impact

    It doesn't really which type was more likely to survive. Sometimes, the idea that one thing was more likely to survive than another can create a Survivorship Bias alternate explanation, but that wouldn't apply here. The fact remains that there were enough of each kind for the historians studying them to derive a correlation, so it doesn't matter which type was more numerous. Correlations are expressed in relative likelihood terms, not in absolute numbers.

    8% picked this

  2. Correct

    In the early nineteenth century,

    Why this is right

    Ooof, this strengthens very weakly by affirming a necessary assumption. We don't often see these Defender style answers on Strengthen, but when we do, it's usually a level 4 or 5 question. If negating an answer would mean that it weakens, then the answer itself strengthens by ruling out an objection. If narrow floorboards were significantly less expensive than wide floorboards, that would totally derail the author's story that narrow floorboards were a status symbol to proclaim wealth. In reality, the author is assuming not only that they're "not significantly less expensive than wide boards" but also that they're "significantly more expensive than wide boards". So this answer is frustratingly weak. But we need to be able to say to ourselves, "This IS a necessary assumption, so saying it out loud DOES strengthen at least somewhat. If there aren't any other more impactful answers, then I'm allowed to pick it."

    Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    49% picked this

  3. In the early nineteenth century,

    No Impact

    You don't say, (C), we never would have guessed that. Sometimes when you read an answer that feels like it's already embedded in your common sense, you can think, "How could this have any impact? My common sense already knew this." A big house has more rooms whether you use narrow or wide floorboards. This doesn't give us any reason to think that narrow floorboards are an expensive status symbol (nor does it undermine some alternate explanation).

    5% picked this

  4. Some early nineteenth-century houses had

    No Impact

    This actually weakens the plausibility of the author's story. Why would you cover up your narrow floorboards with carpet if they're a status symbol you're trying to show off?

    5% picked this

  5. Many of the biggest early

    No Impact

    This strengthens a connection between big houses and wealthy owners, but it doesn't tell us anything about narrow vs. wide floorboards, so it doesn't help us argue that narrow boards were pricier status symbols.

    34% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free