Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 23 Oct 2014, 23:51

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Historians of North American architecture who have studied

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

Historians of North American architecture who have studied [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2005, 00:03
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

50% (02:41) correct 50% (00:00) wrong based on 12 sessions
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.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 619
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2005, 08:54
(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.
Correct.

(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.
wrong.

(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.
wrong

B it is..
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 459
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2005, 09:16
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?
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 619
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2005, 09:22
DLMD wrote:
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?

I dunno if ETS thinks this much!!! any more thoughts?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 459
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2005, 09:26
if that's the case, then B is my pick
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 870
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2005, 09:30
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.

Last edited by rthothad on 24 Mar 2005, 09:36, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 908
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2005, 09:31
between A and E and after a closer look, i will go with E
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2005, 23:32
Thanks


OA is B.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 171
Location: Vienna, Austria
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Re: CR040223--Houses [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2008, 10:44
guys, can someone explain why B is correct?

cheers
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Posts: 272
Location: Motortown
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 0

Re: CR040223--Houses [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2008, 15:10
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
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1406
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

Re: CR040223--Houses [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2008, 07:31
LiveStronger wrote:
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

Though i opted for D this answer seems convincing after i read through the posts !!!
also !! one point i would like to know about B is why is he saying not less expensive !! why not costly !!it sounds silly but this is why i foiund it weak option and rejected the choice !!
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 452
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 1

Re: CR040223--Houses [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2008, 07:44
chunjuwu wrote:
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.


IMO B), it proves that narrow ones will be more expensive per house
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 31
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Re: CR040223--Houses [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2008, 09:19
B
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 154
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Re: CR040223--Houses [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2008, 18:42
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.
Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 564
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 75

Re: Historians of North American architecture who have studied [#permalink] New post 25 Jul 2012, 13:00
double negation;
not less expensive
(B) wins
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 305
Followers: 308

Kudos [?]: 487 [0], given: 2

CAT Tests
Re: Historians of North American architecture who have studied [#permalink] New post 25 Jul 2012, 16:04
Expert's post
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


Image

Image

Re: Historians of North American architecture who have studied   [#permalink] 25 Jul 2012, 16:04
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The number of North American children who are obese, that is aimkp 1 17 Dec 2010, 06:06
1 The number of North American children who are obese that is, talk2pk 4 12 Sep 2009, 22:20
1 The number of North American children who are obesethat is, apurva1985 14 16 Jul 2008, 08:21
Experts publish their posts in the topic The number of North American children who are obese that is, az780 4 13 Feb 2008, 14:07
Historians of North American architecture who have studied gmacvik 7 12 Feb 2007, 22:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Historians of North American architecture who have studied

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.