LSAT Discussion Forum

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?

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?

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

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!

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.