Passage Summary: Usually, wooden houses handle earthquakes better than brick ones. But in one specific earthquake, the wooden house fell down while the brick one next door stayed up.

Reasoning: Wood-frame houses are generally more earthquake-resistant than masonry houses due to their flexibility, yet in a specific instance, a wood-frame house was destroyed while the adjacent masonry house remained intact.

Analysis: To resolve this paradox, we need a piece of information that explains why the 'general rule' failed in this specific case. Perhaps the wood-frame house had a unique structural weakness, like termite damage or poor foundation anchoring, or perhaps the masonry house was specially reinforced. We need a 'tie-breaker' fact that accounts for the unexpected survival of the masonry house or the unexpected failure of the wooden one.