|
23. Historians of North American architecture who have studied early nineteenth-century houses with wooden floors have observed that the boards used on the floors of bigger houses were generally much narrower than those used on the floors of smaller houses. These historians have argued that, since the people for whom the bigger houses were built were generally richer than the people for whom the smaller houses were built, floors made out of narrow floorboards were probably once a status symbol, designed to proclaim the owner’s wealth.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the historians’ argument?
(A) More original floorboards have survived from big early nineteenth-century houses than from small early nineteenth-century houses.
(B) In the early nineteenth century, a piece of narrow floorboard was not significantly less expensive than a piece of wide floorboard of the same length.
(C) In the early nineteenth century, smaller houses generally had fewer rooms than did bigger houses.
(D) Some early nineteenth-century houses had wide floorboards near the walls of each room and narrower floorboards in the center, where the floors were usually carpeted.（B）
(E) Many of the biggest early nineteenth-century houses but very few small houses from that period had some floors that were made of materials that were considerably more expensive than wood, such as marble.
How come B can be the answer? If, as said in B, the narrow floorboard "was not significantly less expensive", meaning it's almost as expensive as the wide board and it's a symbol of wealth, then the poor people who built smaller house would use the narrow board as well.
I chose D even though D is not a 100% good answer but seems better than B.
Any thoughts?
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2004-8-18 04:04:00
楼主
