Historians of North American architecture who have studied early ninet

Question

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.

udaypratapsingh99 · Accepted Answer

one key on tough LR questions is to be very clear about your task, and, always, to be very clear about the conclusion.

In this case, your task is not to reinforce the idea big houses were for the rich - we know this. Your job is to strengthen the argument, which is that narrow floor boards must have been a symbol of wealth since they show up in mostly rich folks' houses.

The first gap you'd probably notice here is that there might be another reason the rich folks use those narrow floorboards--maybe they worked better structurally in big houses. Or, maybe, those rich people got rich because they were cheap! So, we need to deal with these gaps. But, there's also a lurking assumption: that using narrow floorboards is actually more expensive! We would want to validate that assumption.

The correct answer, (B), does this, albeit in a rather "LSAT" way, by telling us that narrow floor boards were NOT less expensive than wide floorboards. The inference here is that it would cost more to floor your house with narrow floorboards if they cost the same or more than wide ones (since you'd need more narrow ones to cover a given space).

Thus, as narrow floorboards, overall, are a more expensive flooring option, the idea that they are a symbol of wealth is strengthened.

See it?

As for the wrong answers:

(A) weakens the argument! This is another way to explain why we see more small floorboards--it's mostly those big houses that have survived.

(C) is irrelevant--the number of rooms relates to the size of the floorboards how?

(D) is confusing, but essentially irrelevant. Who cares if there were some (i.e. at least one) houses with a combo of floorboards? We're talking about overall trends.

(E) is very tempting! This seems to be saying "the rich folks used more expensive flooring--so, they must have used more expensive floorboards." However, notice how the answer remains vague about what type of flooring was expensive. Perhaps it's referring to some marble in the foyer. That marble doesn't tell us anything about the narrow floorboards and why they're there; in fact, it just as easily could be used to show that the rich folks had blown all their money on the marble and so had to go with cheap floorboards.

B is correct

vprabhala · Answer

(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..

LiveStronger · Answer

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 ownerâ€™s wealth.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the historiansâ€™ 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

spriya · Answer

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 !!

KASSALMD · Answer

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.

ChrisLele · Answer

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.

avikroy · Answer

But how does " not significantly less expensive" validate same price or more expensive...........it can as well be less expensive.....so the final prices can be the same

panopticon · Answer

"not significantly less expensive" means that they were generally on par in terms of price. You can take "not significantly" to mean "not of notable difference".

In the case of this specific question, a floorboard (narrow) that commands less material than another floorboard (wide) is not notably less expensive. This would allow us to (best out of all the options) strengthen the conclusion that people of this century might have been willing to signal status by purchasing a less efficient product that comes in a different shape and is the same price as its more efficient counterpart.

Deeksharathore · Answer

How is A wrong here? If more floorboards from the bigger houses have survived, it also means that the floorboards used by the bigger houses were of a better quality. Hence, more expensive. If we think this way, this also strengthens the historian's argument.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Deeksha

This argument brings in a completely new variable - quality of the floorboards. There is absolutely nothing in the passage to draw any conclusions about the relative "quality" of narrow and wide floorboards.

There could be any number of reasons for more floorboards from bigger houses surviving. For instance:

i) Maybe more of the bigger  houses  have survived, leading to more of their floorboards surviving even though the boards themselves may not be of any better quality.
ii) Maybe their narrowness leads to many more narrow floorboards (in absolute number) being used than wide floorboards, leading to more narrow floorboards surviving even though a similar  proportion  of wide floorboards survived.

As seen above, this assumption on quality can be refuted on many grounds. (B) gives a much more straightforward reasoning and hence is a better option.

Hope this helps.

Mizar18 · Answer

(A) More original floorboards have survived from big early nineteenth-century houses than from small early nineteenth-century houses. -  Wrong - Information is not well connected to the scenario in the argument, so you can make many assumptions regarding the survival of floorboards (quality, location, etc)

(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 - By stating that a piece was not significantly less expensive, you are ruling out a possible cause of why richer people got this narrow floorboard, thus you are reinforcing the explanation of the argument (status cause)

PS31 · Answer

I have an issue with the word "significantly" in option B. Does that mean the narrow boards were not significantly but little less expensive than the wide boards. In that case it would not strengthen the argument.

Now see an interesting option which almost everyone is rejecting.

What about C
If the number of rooms in big houses were more than that in small houses , it would mean that bigger houses would need more floor area to be covered and hence ideally they should use wide boards which would be required lesser in numbers. But they used narrow ones which must be required in substantially more numbers and may lead up to more cost which might point towards status symbol thing.

I still think OA is debatable and would be happy to join in.

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Historians of North American architecture who have studied early ninet

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Historians of North American architecture who have studied early ninet

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards