#18 - Certain changes in North American residential

[lsatstudent2]

The stimulus basically says that houses with thin walls started selling well due to the demand for air-conditioning. So, answer C attacks truth of the thin walls selling not selling well after rather than the reasoning used in the argument?

[lsatstudent2]

1) Houses with thick walls are better for heat
2) Thin walled house started selling AFTER world war
3) There was a demand for air-conditioning

Thus, the change AFTER the war was due to the demand for air-conditioning.

How is answer C correct? What happened at other times is not relevant to the time in question? Maybe when there wasn't a demand for air-conditioning something else caused the demand for houses with thin walls?

[Robert Carroll]

lsatstudent2,

But that's exactly the point - as you say, "Maybe when there wasn't a demand for air-conditioning something else caused the demand for houses with thin walls?" So...since something else can cause a demand for these types of houses besides air conditioning, what need is there whatsoever to invoke air conditioning as a cause of demand for them? Something else has factually already caused the demand, answer choice (C) implies, so no other cause is needed. The author's preferred cause, AC, is another cause, and therefore is weakened by the already-adequate cause mentioned by answer choice (C). Whatever factor was causing the demand earlier may still be present. It is possible that AC is also here as the cause of demand, but it's less likely than before answer choice (C). That weakens the argument, so that's correct.

Robert CArroll

[Legally.Brunette]

Hi!

Having read this thread, I still feel like I would rule out C as I did in my first attempt at this question. I understand how it weakens the cause/ effect relationship presented in the stimulus by including the effect without cause. However, I ruled out C originally because of the word "prevalent". To me, an architectural type being "prevalent" does not necessarily mean that it is "selling well" as stated in the stimulus. Is it because the argument is more concerned with the "prevalence" aspect of low ceilings and thin walls rather than it "selling well"?

Thank you!

[Dana D]

Hey Legally Brunette,

The stimulus is concerned with changes in North American residential architecture - it talks about houses with high ceilings and thick walls, which kept residents cool, and implies that after WWII, houses without these features (houses with not high ceilings and not thick walls) started selling well probably because they had air conditioning.

You're correct - selling well and being prevalent are not necessarily interchangeable ideas, but a house type being prevalent is important if we're talking about an overall change in trends. If answer choice (C) was true, that would mean that a prevalence of homes in some parts North America always lacked the high ceilings and thick walls mentioned in the stimulus - even without AC. In these parts of North America, there was no shift towards a different type of home, the homes were always mostly low ceilinged and thin walled - this means the effect (a change in residential architecture) occurred without the cause (AC) and so answer choice (C) weakens the argument.

On weakening questions, you want to focus on the conclusion of the stimulus. In this case, that is the first sentence, which boldly asserts that the change in architecture was caused by AC. The correct answer needs to weaken this idea - the 'selling well' aspect of the second sentence is less relevant.

[Catallus]

Hi, while I understand why C) weakens, I haven't been able to find a satisfactory reason for eliminating E). As I see it, E) presents an alternative "main cause," thereby weakening the conclusion that air conditioning is the main cause.

My thought process: new, post-WWII widely applied thermal insulation technology allowed houses to keep residents cool without the features ("high ceilings and thick walls") that had "traditionally" served this function. Therefore, the availability of air conditioning was not the main cause of houses without those features selling well—they very likely would have sold well anyway, even without air conditioning, because the new thermal insulation technology kept people cool regardless. Based on E), the author is thus mistaken in concluding that air conditioning availability/affordability "mainly" caused the architectural shifts.

Why is this wrong?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Catallus!

I think I understand your thought process behind choosing answer (E). However, there seems to be a small jump in reasoning that might not be warranted. Namely, we don't know how well the new thermal-insulating technology worked or not. We're just told that it was widely applied to housing. If answer choice (E) had added some language like "...and this new technology was successful in keeping people cool during hot weather," then I could see how it might weaken the argument by providing an alternative cause.

[Catallus]

I think I understand your thought process behind choosing answer (E). However, there seems to be a small jump in reasoning that might not be warranted. Namely, we don't know how well the new thermal-insulating technology worked or not. We're just told that it was widely applied to housing. If answer choice (E) had added some language like "...and this new technology was successful in keeping people cool during hot weather," then I could see how it might weaken the argument by providing an alternative cause.

Thank you for the response!

So the idea is that the "thermal-insulating technology" might not have actually been (sufficiently) "thermal-insulating"? Hm. I suppose (E) could have been stronger and more explicit—although I might quibble that the phrase "thermal-insulating" inherently implies the effect of thermal insulation.

Still, I see why (C) is more clear as a weakener by showing the purported effect (low ceilings, thin walls) occurring absent the purported cause (availability of air conditioning), meaning that the author's evidence for "certain changes" occurring due to air conditioning does not lend support to her conclusion. Given (C), whatever architectural changes did occur after WWII, we don't know that if those changes included low ceilings and thin walls, which, as per (C), existed and sold well even before WWII. Therefore, if (C) is true, we can no longer can attribute "certain changes" in architecture to the rise in availability and affordability of air conditioning after WWII. The premises no longer support the conclusion.

(E), by contrast, does not really address post-WWII architectural changes. Given (E), we don't know whether the changes did/did not occur, what they consisted of, and if they can be causally connected to air conditioning. The author assumes that changes in architecture included changes in ceiling height and wall thickness. We do not know whether this assumption is warranted, but (E) can only affect the argument (provide an alternative cause) if it is, in fact, the case that "certain changes" included low ceilings and thin walls. But (E) neither confirms nor denies that assumption, whereas (C) attacks that assumption directly, thereby weakening the argument much more than (E).

[Dana D]

Catallus,

The last line of your reasoning is the most significant - (C) weakens the most, therefore it is the right answer. When in doubt between two answer choices as you were here, look at what the question is asking - which answer choice weakens the most. Good work!

[albert_ortizzav@hotmail.com]

Hi team!

Does this stimulus features a partial-cause scenarios because of the word "mainly"? the PS LR Bible does not provide specific common ways to weaken partial-cause scenarios as with probable and possible causes. Should we still look for the 5 common ways of attacking a Weaken CE question featuring absolute-partial-causes?