PrepTest 101

Incorrect. If anything, this answer suggests an alternative reason for the small floorboards—they were more durable since they lasted longer. That doesn't tie into them being a status symbol, so this answer, if anything, weakens the argument. (Even that relies on an assumption, however, since the larger houses probably had less traffic on each floor than smaller houses!)

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon - Bigger 19th century houses had smaller floorboards than smaller houses
Explanation - Small floorboards was a status symbol

Answer Anticipation:
This argument, similar to the last one, puts forward a potential explanation for a given phenomenon.

When a Strengthen question concludes an explanation, the correct answer will generally do one of two things. The first is to rule out an alternative explanation, thus making the proposed explanation more likely. The second is to provide evidence in favor of the given explanation.

For the first, any answer that rules out an alternative reason for the small floorboards in larger houses would strengthen this argument. Maybe they provided more stability needed for larger rooms, or maybe there were more available and thus larger homes needed to go with them. Anything ruling out a possibility such as this will strengthen the argument.

For the second, anything suggesting that floorboards were a status symbol and did show off wealth will serve as a correct answer here. This is a more direct Strengthen answer, but it's also a less common one in a question such as this.

Answer Explanation:
Tricky! This answer can feel as if it weakens the argument by saying that the floorboards were similar in cost. However, this answer compares the cost of one narrow floorboard to one wide floorboard. If you have two houses of equal size, then covering one in narrow floorboards and the other in wide floorboards would require more of the former; covering a larger house would require even more floorboards. So this answer establishes that, despite the similar cost per board, the larger house with the narrow floorboards would, overall, be spending a lot more on flooring, thus strengthening the argument that they demonstrated wealth. This answer thus strengthens the argument and is correct.

Key Takeaway:
We just talked about Phenomenon/Explanation arguments in the last question, so check out that takeaway for takeaways on that subject.

For this question, note that it features a comparison between large/small houses, and narrow/wide floorboards. The correct answer brings up a direct comparison between the cost of the latter, and relies on an indirectly established comparison between the former. When dealing with a Strengthen question that crucially relies on a comparison, the answer will generally need to deal with both elements in the comparison, unless it's bringing up a piece of information that can be used to complete a partial comparison that was already made in the stimulus.

Incorrect. The number of rooms that a house is split up into doesn't affect the overall floor area to any significant extent, and that's what's relevant to the number of floorboards required.

Incorrect. Without tying this into the smaller/larger houses, this answer doesn't provide information that can be used to affect the argument.

Incorrect. This answer is about floors without floorboards, which are out of scope of this argument about whether floorboards were a status symbol.