The two most popular external surfaces for homes in this state are

A) painting cost is at least equal. negate - painting cost over lifetime is < wooden build cost. so, total cost is less 2x of built cost.
Brick build cost is greater than 2x of wooden. The argument falls apart since even if painting and repainting brick is more easy on the pocket. HOLD

B) hmm..as long as it is more than 5 we can't conclude much. stem doesnt say how much one painting costs. IGNORE

C) Don't care. IGNORE

D) negate. cost of re/paint not equal to brick built. is it less or more? if less than go with wood. if more then build brick house. Good option but A is superior. IGNORE


E) probably a trap. The conclusion specifically talks about money and brick vs wood. IGNORE

Answer A

Premise:
1. brick vs wood exterior. cost of brick exterior =~ 2x cost of wood exterior.
2. wood exterior need to repaint every five years, in case of heavy rainfall, more often then not.
3. Conclusion : Over all wood one is more costly then brick one.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the argument above relies?
A. The cost of painting and repainting a wooden house over its lifetime is at least equal to the cost of installing a wood exterior in the first place. --- So this way cost is almost equal to brick wall installation in least case. but in any other case this cost will be more then brick wall life time cost. on nigation , conclusion falls. A is the correct option

In my opinion, the options to this question are very poorly structured. Option A and Option D both mean the same thing, which is the cost of painting and re-painting is greater than the cost of Installing them freshly.

Because of a lack of Quality checks, students like me often waste time understanding and coming up with a way to find the answer, resulting in a very bad experience and time-consuming.

Can we add popularity/ rating to the question?
For example, OG questions will have a better rating or a question with discussions from Verbal Experts themselves.

Just a thought happy to help.

Bunuel bb

doubt between option A and option D. can someone explain?

Argument:

A brick exterior costs twice as much as a wood exterior to install. (Say wood installation - $x, Brick installation - $2x)

Wood exteriors need to be painted and repainted every five years or so

Conclusion: Accounting for re-painting, wood exterior is actually more expensive than brick over the lifetime of the house.

The author is saying that compared to brick ($2x installation cost), wood turns out to be more expensive overall i.e. more than $2x (counting the re-painting etc charges)
Since we know that the brick installation costs $x, this means that he is assuming that painting-re-painting charges will be more than $x (to be total more than $2x)


A. The cost of painting and repainting a wooden house over its lifetime is at least equal to the cost of installing a wood exterior in the first place.

He is assuming that cost of painting and repainting a wooden house is more than x (i.e. at least x). We know that cost of installing wood is $x.
So he is assuming that cost of re-painting is more than cost of wood installation.


D. The cost of painting and repainting a wooden house over the expected lifetime of the house is equal to that of installing a brick exterior.

This option is different. It says that cost of repainting (at least $x) is equal to cost of installing BRICK exterior ($2x).
But the author does not assume this. He assumes that cost of repainting is at least equal to cost of installing WOOD exterior ($x).
Incorrect

Other options are all irrelevant.

Answer (A)

AJ_1313
captain0612 - This question is fine, nothing wrong here.