Kevinst wrote:Doesn't the supposedly correct answer require to much of an outside assumption? From what I've studied so far one should always try to assume at least as possible.
This answer clearly requires a strong assumption, namely that multistory buildings are rather built on lands whose values are higher. It does make sense, but it requires outside "knowledge"

What do the experts say? Isn't this question as a whole rather flawed?
If not: When am I allowed to use "outside assumptions"?

vk_vinayak wrote: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?

(A) Buildings constructed of bamboo are less likely to suffer earthquake damage than are steel and concrete buildings.

(B) Bamboo is unsuitable as a building material for multistory buildings.

(C) In order to protect it from being damaged by termites and beetles, bamboo must be soaked, at some expense, in a preservative.

(D) In some tropical areas, bamboo is used to make the scaffolding that is used during large construction projects.

(E) Bamboo growing in an area where land values are increasing is often cleared to make way for construction.