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 and transport than locally sourced timber.
- Some wooden buildings are treated with fire-retardant chemicals that markedly raise their resistance to flames.
- 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 are often taller and can hold more occupants than typical wooden structures.
- Steel structures are completely impervious to fire and cannot be damaged by any blaze ever ignited.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- 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
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?