#6 - Wood-frame houses withstand earthquakes far better than

[jcough346]

I was between C and E. Thought E was right because it encapsulates all homes lack of imperviousness to earthquakes. Im figuring E is wrong because if it were true, than it is just as likely that the masonry homes would have collapsed as well. While C is correct because it presents a more narrow cause of the collapse.

[Adam Tyson]

Good analysis, jcough! Absolutely right about answer E - it doesn't resolve anything because it doesn't explain why the wood house fell and the masonry house didn't. C does the job by telling us that this particular wood house was weakened in advance of the earthquake.

Nice job!

[avengingangel]

Thanks for this explanation! I chose E as well but now see why it's incorrect.

[lemonade42]

How come (A) is not correct? I was thinking that if there are more wood frame houses, then it's more likely that a wood frame house is destroyed compared to the rare masonry house.

[Dana D]

Hey lemonade,

The 'paradox' here is that wood-frame houses are supposed to withstand earthquakes better. Even if there were 99 wood-frame houses in an area and 1 masonry house, we would expect the masonry house to withstand more damage than any wooden-frame house in an earthquake, because masonry house walls can't withstand lateral forces as well as wood-frame houses. The number of each type of house doesn't help explain why this one wood-frame house was destroyed and the one masonry house next door was undamaged.

Hope that helps!