PrepTest 125, Section 4, Question 6
Wood-frame houses withstand earthquakes far better than masonry(33 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- AIn earthquake-prone areas,(9 more words not shown)
- BIn earthquake-prone areas,(9 more words not shown)
- CThe walls of(10 more words not shown)
- DThe masonry house(8 more words not shown)
- ENo structure is(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
These two houses might differ in more than their building materials.
The general claim makes sense on the facts we're given: a wooden frame can flex when the ground shakes sideways. That helps it withstand forces that a more rigid structure may handle badly. But what if this particular wooden house was old and falling apart, while the masonry house was newly built and solid? A material's usual advantage might not make up for the condition of the building.
There could be other differences too. Maybe one house experienced more severe shaking, or a fire contributed to the damage. Those are possibilities to investigate, not facts we've been given. We shouldn't assume the only thing separating these neighbors is wood versus masonry.
What we’re looking for
To explain the surprising result, I'd look for something that made this wooden house unusually vulnerable or this masonry house unusually sturdy. We can keep the general advantage of wood and explain why this pair of houses turned out differently.
Working the answers
- A
We're comparing one house with its neighbor, not counting all the damaged houses in an earthquake-prone area. More wooden houses could help explain a larger total number of damaged wooden houses. It doesn't tell us why this wooden house was destroyed while the masonry house beside it survived.
- B
Changing which kind of house is more common doesn't fix the problem with A. We still need a relevant difference between these two houses. The number of other masonry houses tells us nothing about either neighbor's ability to withstand the earthquake.
- CCorrect
The wooden house had already suffered damage to its walls. That gives us the kind of weakness we were looking for: although wood generally handles earthquake forces better, these particular walls had been damaged before the shaking began. The earthquake could have finished off an already weakened structure. We don't have to reject the general advantage of wooden frames to explain this exception.
- D
More expensive doesn't necessarily mean better constructed. The price could reflect something other than earthquake resistance. If the answer told us that the masonry house was especially well built, that would be relevant. But we would have to supply that connection ourselves to turn price into an explanation.
- E
This helps us understand how a wooden house could be destroyed at all. No house is completely protected. But why did the supposedly less earthquake-resistant neighbor survive? General vulnerability doesn't identify a difference that explains the two houses' different outcomes.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.