Loading...
As a construction material, bamboo is as strong as steel and sturdier than concrete. Moreover, in tropical areas bamboo is a much less expensive construction material than either steel or concrete and is always readily available. In tropical areas, therefore, building with bamboo makes better economic sense than building with steel or concrete, except where land values are high.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the exception noted above?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| As a construction material, bamboo is as strong as steel and sturdier than concrete. |
|
| Moreover, in tropical areas bamboo is a much less expensive construction material than either steel or concrete and is always readily available. |
|
| In tropical areas, therefore, building with bamboo makes better economic sense than building with steel or concrete, except where land values are high. |
|
The argument builds step by step: first establishing bamboo's physical superiority, then adding its economic advantages in tropical areas, and finally concluding that bamboo makes better economic sense - but surprisingly adds an exception about high land values that seems disconnected from the stated advantages.
In tropical areas, building with bamboo makes better economic sense than building with steel or concrete, except where land values are high.
The premises (bamboo's strength, durability, lower cost, and availability) logically support choosing bamboo over steel/concrete. However, the exception about high land values creates a gap - we need to understand why expensive land would change this calculation despite bamboo's clear advantages.
Paradox - We need to explain why bamboo wouldn't make economic sense when land values are high, even though it's cheaper, stronger, and more available than steel or concrete in tropical areas.
The argument makes specific claims about bamboo's strength (equal to steel), durability (better than concrete), cost (much less expensive), and availability (always readily available) in tropical areas. The exception is precisely tied to 'high land values' situations.
For paradox questions, we need to find explanations that resolve the apparent contradiction. The puzzle here is: if bamboo is cheaper, stronger, more durable, and always available, why wouldn't it make economic sense when land values are high? We need to think about what happens when land is expensive that would make the cheaper, better material suddenly not economically sensible. This likely involves factors that become more important than material costs when land is very valuable.
Buildings constructed of bamboo are less likely to suffer earthquake damage than are steel and concrete buildings. This actually makes bamboo sound even MORE attractive, not less. If bamboo buildings are safer from earthquakes, this would be another reason to choose bamboo over steel and concrete, making the exception about high land values even more puzzling rather than explaining it.
Bamboo is unsuitable as a building material for multistory buildings. This perfectly explains the exception! When land values are high, developers need to maximize their return on that expensive land by building upward - creating tall, multistory structures. If bamboo can't be used for such buildings, then despite all its advantages (strength, cost, availability), it becomes economically impractical in high land value areas where vertical construction is essential.
In order to protect it from being damaged by termites and beetles, bamboo must be soaked, at some expense, in a preservative. While this adds some cost to bamboo construction, it doesn't specifically explain why this cost issue would become particularly problematic only when land values are high. The preservative cost would be the same regardless of land values.
In some tropical areas, bamboo is used to make the scaffolding that is used during large construction projects. This tells us about an alternative use for bamboo but doesn't explain why high land values would make bamboo less economically sensible as a primary building material. If anything, this shows bamboo has additional utility in construction.
Bamboo growing in an area where land values are increasing is often cleared to make way for construction. This talks about clearing existing bamboo but doesn't address the economic comparison between using bamboo versus steel/concrete as construction materials. The availability issue mentioned in the passage says bamboo is 'always readily available,' so clearing some bamboo wouldn't create a supply problem.