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. These historians have argued that, since the people for whom the bigger houses were built were generally richer than the people for whom the smaller houses were built, floors made out of narrow floorboards were probably once a status symbol, designed to proclaim the owner’s wealth.

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

(A) More original floorboards have survived from big early nineteenth-century houses than from small early nineteenth-century houses.

(B) In the early nineteenth century, a piece of narrow floorboard was not significantly less expensive than a piece of wide floorboard of the same length.

(C) In the early nineteenth century, smaller houses generally had fewer rooms than did bigger houses.

(D) Some early nineteenth-century houses had wide floorboards near the walls of each room and narrower floorboards in the center, where the floors were usually carpeted.

(E) Many of the biggest early nineteenth-century houses but very few small houses from that period had some floors that were made of materials that were considerably more expensive than wood, such as marble.

how do you define big house and small house?

for example, if the area of big house is 500 squre feet, each squre feet of narrow wood is 0.9; the area of small house is 100, each squre feet of wood cost 1, so 500 * 0.9 > 100* 1, so B is correct

But if the area of big house is 105, area of small house is 95, 105*0.9<95*1, so small house cost more, the B is not right.

so the gap between big house and small house must be big enough, but there is no mention about area in the stem.

Am I thinking too much?

if that's the case, then B is my pick

I will go with 'D'
The wide floorboards are used near the walls where the floor is visible so as to maintain their status and used narrower floorboards where the floor is covered.

Thanks


OA is B.

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. These historians have argued that, since the people for whom the bigger houses were built were generally richer than the people for whom the smaller houses were built, floors made out of narrow floorboards were probably once a status symbol, designed to proclaim the owner’s wealth.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the historians’ argument?
Need to find a link between
bigger houses -> rich people and narrow floorboards
(A) More original floorboards have survived from big early nineteenth-century houses than from small early nineteenth-century houses.
Out of scope
(B) In the early nineteenth century, a piece of narrow floorboard was not significantly less expensive than a piece of wide floorboard of the same length.
narrow boards are expensive links to rich people - YES
(C) In the early nineteenth century, smaller houses generally had fewer rooms than did bigger houses.
Out of scope
(D) Some early nineteenth-century houses had wide floorboards near the walls of each room and narrower floorboards in the center, where the floors were usually carpeted.
Out of scope
(E) Many of the biggest early nineteenth-century houses but very few small houses from that period had some floors that were made of materials that were considerably more expensive than wood, such as marble.
Out of scope

IMO B), it proves that narrow ones will be more expensive per house

The rich people could have saved money using wide floor boards in their houses because wider the floor board, lesser the number of boards they would have needed. Considering that the narrow floor boards were not much cheaper than the wide floor boards, why would rich people with big houses use narrow boards knowing well that they would have to use a larger number of these boards than if they used wide boards? The only answer could be status symbol. Therefore, choice B that addresses this issue is the correct answer. It tells us that narrow boards were not much less expensive than wide boards yet, the rich chose narrow boards, of which, they would have needed many more than if they had chosen narrow boards.

It seems like most had it between (B) and (D), so I'll address those two.

First off, the argument contends that narrow boards in big houses were a sign of conspicuous consumption: the rich wanted to show how rich they were. We are looking to strengthen this claim.

(B) In the early nineteenth century, a piece of narrow floorboard was not significantly less expensive than a piece of wide floorboard of the same length.

Well, if the narrow piece was not much cheaper (and we have to assume that 'narrow' means much more narrow than a wide board), then people had to pay more for square footage to cover a house with narrow tiles. Not a perfect answer, but a good enough answer because it provides support that narrow boards were more expensive. Therefore, people intentionally

(D) Some early nineteenth-century houses had wide floorboards near the walls of each room and narrower floorboards in the center, where the floors were usually carpeted.

If narrow boards are a sign of wealth, and rich people want to flaunt their wealth, then they wouldn't hide the narrow boards under the carpet. Therefore, this answer is the opposite of what we are going for (and it thus weakens the argument). Had people tended to put the carpet over the wide boards and instead expose the narrow boards, then this answer choice would strengthen the argument.
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep