Prep 24, Section3, #23

Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

Prep 24, Section3, #23

Postby soyeonjeon » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:49 am

Prep 24, Section3, #23

This is the strangest strengthen question type I have seen thus far.
I would have spotted B only if it was an assumption question.. as a defender assumption.
Are there defender strengthen question types and this being the first of that kind I have spotted?

Thanks greatly.

Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: Prep 24, Section3, #23

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:08 am

Interesting question.

I see what you mean about it fending off a possible issue, but I think the way to view this is in line with all s/w questions: they address a gap by either validating or invalidating it. In this case, the gap in the argument is that there might be another reason those rich folks are using narrow floorboards (they support a large house better, rich folks are cheap, special taxation rules), but alongside all of that is a big fat assumption that the narrow floorboards are more expensive. We never learned that in the stimulus. (B) validates that using narrow floorboards is indeed more expensive.

There's a discussion of the question's details here:

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests