medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An architect claims that most buildings constructed with steel frames are more resistant to fire than those constructed with wood frames. The architect points to the higher melting point of steel as the primary reason.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the architect's claim?
- Steel is generally costlier to produce, ship, and erect on site than the dimensional timber that has been sourced from nearby regional sawmills.
- Some wooden buildings are treated with deeply absorbed fire-retardant chemicals that markedly raise their resistance to open flames during a sustained blaze.
- A review of 500 structural failures during fires found that steel frames collapsed far sooner than wood frames because steel conducts heat so rapidly.
- Steel-framed buildings tend to rise far taller and to hold many more occupants per floor than the typical low-rise wooden commercial structure.
- Steel structures are completely impervious to fire and can never be weakened, buckled, or otherwise damaged by any blaze that is ever ignited.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ