#23 - Historians of North American architecture who have

[ksandberg]

Dear PowerScore,

I understand why B is correct, as it is showing that for the square footage covered, a narrow floor board is more expensive than a wide floor board. However, I do not understand why E is incorrect. E demonstrates that the houses in which the narrow floor boards were found, generally involve more expensive materials than the houses in which the wide floor boards were found. Doesn't this also support the conclusion that narrow floor boards may have been symbolic of wealth?

Thank you.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, KS,

Welcome to the PowerScore forums! Thank you for your question.

First, a note:

The information in B strengthens the validity of the author's conclusion by "defending" against the possibility that narrow floorboards were actually much cheaper than wide floorboards at the time of the construction of these houses. It is not necessary to consider square footage. It is only necessary to note that for narrow floorboards actually to be a "status" symbol, they must at a minimum not be far cheaper than wide floorboards of the same length.

Now, with respect to answer choice E, focus again on the conclusion:

"Floors made out of narrow floorboards were probably once a status symbol, designed to proclaim the owner's wealth."

Your job is to find some new information that would support this conclusion. Answer choice E gives you information about other floors that were indeed far more expensive. Perhaps these floors proclaimed the owners' wealth. However, this answer choice does not give you direct information about the narrow floorboards value or significance in proclaiming wealth. To get the information in answer choice E to support the conclusion, you must introduce another assumption, i.e. that a likely purpose of other floors in big houses gives you reason to believe that all floors in such a house must share a similar purpose and be relatively expensive compared to alternatives.

Whenever you have to introduce an intermediate step in a strengthen or weaken problem, it is unlikely that you have arrived at the answer that "most helps to strengthen" the argument. The credited response will directly address a flaw or gap in the reasoning and thus be a better alternative.

Please follow up with further questions.

[calftemo]

Hi,

I too was very tempted by (E), as it seems to strengthen the correlation between bigger houses (wealthy people) and the use of expensive flooring. From the LR Bible, we know that one way to strengthen a causation-based argument is through correlation.

However, I have a question: Would (E) be considered a "shell game" type of answer choice for this question? It seems like it would strengthen a different - albeit very closely related - conclusion than the one we are given in the stimulus.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Calftemo,

Yes, good job! There are a couple issues with (E). As you noted, it's a Shell Game. We're not interested in other flooring materials, just whether the wood was a status symbol.

Second issue: Even with the information in (E) we do not know whether these other more expensive floors were status symbols designed to "proclaim" wealth. All we know is that these other floors are more expensive.

Third issue: The weasel word "many" at the beginning of (E) weakens its implications. Many big houses have expensive floors. Many have welcome mats. Very few small houses have welcome mats. Okay... does this do very much for us? What if many big houses don't have welcome mats? Are welcome mats a status symbol? Who knows. Be careful with words like "many" (especially on Weaken and Strengthen questions) that are synonymous with "some."

Good job!

[Coleman]

Hi,

So I got why E doesn't help to bolster the connection between the given premise and the argument. Nevertheless, I think answer choice B is incomplete or too vague to strengthen the conclusion that "narrow floorboards were probably once a status symbol displaying the owner's wealth."

In the language of B, it states "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." This statement inherently implies a possibility that both narrow and wide floorboards are priced the same. The only truth we can infer from this statement is that the narrow one was not greatly cheaper than a wide one. If they cost the same price, how can we infer that narrow floorboards are the signs of the owner's wealth?

If I was told that "a piece of narrow floorboard was more expensive than a wide floorboard," then I would go with it without any hesitation, but answer choice B sounds too weak to strengthen the argument.
Any correction in this reasoning?

Thank you!

[separk5567]

Hi Coleman,

I was just struggling with this question too. But I think (B) strengthens the argument in that it eliminates the possibility of the narrow boards being cheaper than the wide boards.

Saying that A is "not significantly less expensive" than B equals saying that A is "NOT cheaper" than B, right? So I think it eliminates a possible situation that might weaken the argument. That's what I think! Let me know if this helps

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Coleman,

Separk is on the right track here.

One thing to keep in mind that strengthen questions do not ask you to prove an argument is correct. Your goal is to help the argument in any way. That can mean just a smidge, or it could mean that you completely justify the conclusion. Think of it a as a spectrum from 1-100%. You could have an answer fall in the 100% category, or just as likely, an answer that falls into the strengthen by 1% category.

In this case, I agree that the answer choice doesn't make the conclusion a slam dunk. It does help a bit though. This is a causal argument. The author makes the claim that status is the cause of the narrow floorboards in big houses. Let's say that the floorboards are the same price. That would indicate that there was a reason, other than price, that would account for selecting the floorboards. It basically eliminates one possible cause of the selection. Whenever you eliminate an alternate cause, you strengthen the argument.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[ericj_williams]

Hi, KS,

Welcome to the PowerScore forums! Thank you for your question.

First, a note:

The information in B strengthens the validity of the author's conclusion by "defending" against the possibility that narrow floorboards were actually much cheaper than wide floorboards at the time of the construction of these houses. It is not necessary to consider square footage. It is only necessary to note that for narrow floorboards actually to be a "status" symbol, they must at a minimum not be far cheaper than wide floorboards of the same length.

Now, with respect to answer choice E, focus again on the conclusion:

"Floors made out of narrow floorboards were probably once a status symbol, designed to proclaim the owner's wealth."

Your job is to find some new information that would support this conclusion. Answer choice E gives you information about other floors that were indeed far more expensive. Perhaps these floors proclaimed the owners' wealth. However, this answer choice does not give you direct information about the narrow floorboards value or significance in proclaiming wealth. To get the information in answer choice E to support the conclusion, you must introduce another assumption, i.e. that a likely purpose of other floors in big houses gives you reason to believe that all floors in such a house must share a similar purpose and be relatively expensive compared to alternatives.

Whenever you have to introduce an intermediate step in a strengthen or weaken problem, it is unlikely that you have arrived at the answer that "most helps to strengthen" the argument. The credited response will directly address a flaw or gap in the reasoning and thus be a better alternative.

Please follow up with further questions.

I'm gonna disagree here. I think that square footage, size, etc., is relevant, and I didn't consider it until he mentioned it.

The fact that the narrow floorboard is not significantly less expensive STILL ALLOWS for the floorboard to be less expensive.

But how is it a status symbol if it's less expensive?

Because the houses are bigger. Even if less expensive, multiply price times a larger quantity and you have a higher cost.

This may not be true if the price is substantially lower, which was ruled out.

[Adam Tyson]

It's not just that the houses were bigger, ericj_williams, but that to cover any given amount of floor you would have to use more narrow boards than wide boards (assuming, as the stimulus says, that they were of the same length). If answer B is true, then a floor made of narrower boards would absolutely have to be more expensive than one made of wider boards, because the total cost of the boards needed to cover the space would be more! So even in two houses with identical floor space, narrow boards would indicate more money spent than one with wide boards,. That helps (but does not prove) that narrow boards are chosen to show off your wealth!

[nickp18]

Hi Powerscore Team!

Just a clarifying question for answer choice B. The part of the stimulus stating "was not significantly less expensive" means that narrow floorboards could be more expensive, the same price, or just slightly cheaper than wide floorboards, correct? This doesn't preclude the narrow boards from being cheaper, just from being much less expensive.

Hopefully I'm on the right track!

Thanks,

Nick