Q17 - A survey taken ten

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Explain Discrepancy

Stimulus Breakdown:
Fact 1: 10 yrs ago, survey showed town L was below nat'l average living conditions, but most of them were satisfied.
Fact 2: new survey shows town L is same as nat'l average, but most of them are dissatisfied.

Answer Anticipation:
Given that area L people were satisfied when they were UNDER the national average, why are they dissatisfied now being AT the national average? Normally, we don't try to predict exactly what the answer will be on paradox questions, but there's only two options I'd see here: 1. Area L is happier being an underdog, having something to complain about 2. The national average is way crappier than it was ten years ago. Being AT a low standard is worse than being slightly below a good standard.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) "Adjacent areas" is out of scope.

(B) Yes! If we imagine the national living conditions having a numerical score, we could say that ten years ago the national average was 80, and so area L was slightly below 80. If, now, the national average has substantially declined, it might now be a 50. If area L is now AT the national average, it has a lower standard of living than it did ten years ago.

(C) We don't care about how they decided on optimal living conditions. This does nothing to explain why L was happier ten years ago vs. now.

(D) This would explain why living conditions haven't improved in area L, but it doesn't explain why they seem to have gotten worse (or more specifically, it doesn't explain the DROP in satisfaction from area L's residents)

(E) Someone might take this and spin a story that NOW they DO know they're AT the national average and they are dissatisfied (because they've always thought of themselves as ABOVE the national average). But we just added like three of our own assumptions to make that story work.

Takeaway/Pattern: The paradox wants us to think that going from BELOW average to average is an INCREASE. But the average is not a fixed reference point. So since it could be traveling up or down, you can't judge an absolute standard of living merely by reference to a relative idea like "how it compares to an average".

#officialexplanation

[nanagyanewa]

Hello,
Could someone please help me with this question? I don't really understand why B is right and why D is wrong. Thanks for any help

[alex.chasan]

I got this one wrong and had some trouble understanding why (E) was wrong, but I think that the key to this one is understanding that as the stimulus compares area L to the rest of the country, it does so only in relative terms.

The other thing that makes it tough is that there is kind of a "fake-out" discrepancy within the discrepancy they actually want us to resolve.

Area L 10 years Ago: Things are worse than average, but people are happy.
Area L Today: Things are about average, but people are unhappy.

My interpretation of this now is that, maybe 10 years ago, the national average was off the charts awesome (think dot-com bubble circa 1999). In that case, area L being a little below the average would still leave it pretty well off.

If in the 10 years since the survey the national average went through the floor (say, due to a major economic collapse brought on by a severe financial crisis - just hypothetical) and area L is doing about the same as average - which is now pretty ugly - then things in area L are pretty bad.

[farhadshekib]

(D) gives us a conditional relationship:

Living conditions improve --> Residents feel situation is in need of improvement.

Now, how can this help us resolve the paradox above?

Well, we don't know if the living condition improved for residents in area L; we only know that they are the same as the national average.

Therefore, the sufficient condition is not necessarily triggered.

Even if the sufficient condition is met - the living condition has improved - we would only know that the residents felt that their situation was in need of improvement.

This would not explain why most residents of L, ten years after the survey, feel dissatisfied with their living conditions.

In fact, it would deepen the paradox: if the living condition has actually improved, we would also expect dissatisfaction with their living conditions to decrease.

[LSAT-Chang]

Even after reading the above posts, I don't seem to understand why (B) is the correct answer. I chose (E) because I thought if residents of area L were not aware that their living conditions were below national average, then they may have just been happy because they thought they were above average or something. Then 10 years later, they found out that they are doing worse than the national average and they freak out. DOesn't this totally explain the discrepancy? Could someone help me understand how (B) resolves this discrepancy?

[maryadkins]

Great explanations of (B) and (D) here!

To elaborate on why (B) is right, the two surveys only tell us how area L is doing as compared to the national average. Since we don't know if the national average is high or low at any moment, we don't know what the living conditions in area L actually were or are. (B) captures this gap in our knowledge by suggesting that maybe they were, in fact, BETTER 10 years ago than today. This is what Alex was saying, and it's right.

As to why (E) is wrong, it might explain why the people were generally satisfied 10 years ago, but it doesn't explain why they would be dissatisfied today. So it doesn't actually get at the paradox in the way that (B) does.

(A) and (C) are irrelevant.

[dorbathedogslayer]

I've pretty consistently been having problems with these sorts of questions because I think I've been trying to find the choice that answers all of the apparent conflicts in the question rather than the one they want.

In this case, I identified the conflicts as
i) Why are the people in L happier than other people in the country 10 years ago although they had below average living conditions
ii) why are the people in L dissatisfied now although they are about average (implying a relative improvement, if not an absolute one as well)

I had selected (B) before arguing to myself that it didn't do anything to resolve conflict (i) above, and because I had to assume that L would have experienced a decline in living conditions along with the rest of the country (because we have no information on the magnitude of the shifts, its even possible that the country experienced a decline in living conditions, while L experienced an improvement in living conditions, bringing both to about the same level).

For me, (A) however, resolved both the conflicts because it shows that the data presented in the question is irrelevant to the inhabitants of L. For example, suppose the inhabitants of L are satisfied if there are X trees in the neighborhood and otherwise unsatisfied, while the rest of the country doesnt share their view. This resolves conflict (i) above, but also resolves conflict (ii), as the information presented about living conditions being about the same is still irrelevant to people in L, who value other things that we don't have information about.

I'm not really happy with any of the answers though. I saw a strong case for (E) as well - maybe inhabitants of L were (like many people - more concerned with relative than absolute prosperity).

[maryadkins]

I see why you were drawn to (A), but it doesn't actually resolve the two conflicts you spotted. Stay very close to the core. The core is about national averages. (A) is about adjacent areas. These are very different. We have absolutely no idea how adjacent areas affect the national average, if at all--how big are they? How many are they? They could be less than 1% of the national total, easily... what do we do then?

While there are some various possibilities within (B) as well, it is comparing precisely the elements that we need to compare--those that are compared in the stimulus.

(E) doesn't address the present.

I've pretty consistently been having problems with these sorts of questions because I think I've been trying to find the choice that answers all of the apparent conflicts in the question rather than the one they want.

Don't look for an answer choice that addresses every possible assumption, especially if you spot several. You typically won't find it, and you may likely end up choosing one that's too general for which you have to make several of your own assumptions to justify. Once you identify the assumption(s), select the answer choice that most clearly and specifically address one of them.

Good luck!

[Acing LSAT]

I think the reason why "E" is wrong is much clearer.

The gap is the ten year ago they were happy with below average living conditions and now they are unhappy with average living conditions. The question is: if they were happy with -avg why are they unhappy with avg?

there are two obvious ways to explain that
1. by saying that average LC are relative to something else and we have no idea how they are really living. Like many pointed: living below avg in the roaring 20s was better LC than avg in the 30s.

2. that there is no correlation between LC and happiness (see "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankel. The middle class commits suicide at a much higher rate than the poor and suicide is almost unheard of in the inner city


"B" gives us point 1. namely they were richer ten years ago than they are and in real terms they might have had higher LC.

This supposes that we assume the LC is tied to happiness.

"E" although tempting it falls very short. Not only, does it only attempt to explain why they were happier ten years ago - because bliss = happiness - and not why they are unhappy now (as Mary Adkins points out). It barely does that.
"E" leaves a huge gap - even if they are unaware of how other people live we do not know that would make them happy. It could be that people whose happiness depends on keeping up with the Jones are never happy because someone always has more than they do. So we have this gap to explain why they are happy ten years ago.

"B" however has a much smaller gap. If we assume that there is a baseline of LC people need to be happy and that they has that ten years ago and are now missing it we have an answer.

I know "B" has a gap also but it strikes me as smaller.

any thoughts?

[asafezrati]

I also had a little trouble with this one, but will share my views.

Survey in the past: Conditions slightly below average. Most people are happy.
Survey today: Conditions equal to average. Most people are dissatisfied.

Paradox: Improvement in conditions as compared to the average over time, but people are less happy than before.

Answer choices:

A. A/C uses vague terms which require additional assumptions. "Aspects of living conditions" is at best a non-defined group of conditions out of the total living conditions which are mentioned in the stimulus. The comparison the what the rest of the residents value is also vague. Too many assumptions are required for this to resolve the issue. It is wrong.

B. Ten years ago the average conditions were X, and in area L the conditions were slightly below it. Now, 10 years later, the average has declined substantially, but L's conditions are like the average. If we put it in numbers: Average before - 10,000, L is slightly less - 9,900. Today average decreased substantially - 5,000, L is about the same as average - 5,000.
This helps explain why even though we are now on average, people are less happy than before.

C. I couldn't seem to find a way to connect optimal living conditions (considered as such by the survey) and the other terms to the apparent paradox. This is an obvious wrong one.

D. As mentioned above this is a conditional statement:
Living Conditions Improve -> Residents Perceive Need for Improvement
Yep, the sufficient condition isn't known to be met (actually, it seems to be invalid, but it doesn't matter imo), and we only know the necessary condition is probably met.
Under these circumstances the conditional statement has no real impact on the logic (unless we assume that the sufficient IS met, and this is going to far), so this one is wrong.

E. L residents didn't know that they were below average 10 years ago. It might explain why they were happy 10 years ago, but it doesn't say anything about the present situation. We don't know whether they know they are currently on the average. We don't know many things. This doesn't resolve the paradox.

[contropositive]

After reading the awesome explanations above, I put this in my own terms and hopefully it can help someone out there who is still confused.

10 years ago the average was 179 and L was slightly below that, 175. 10 years later the average is 150 and L is about the same, 149 which is pretty bad compared to the awesome 175 they used to have. Therefore, B explains the paradox.

[mswang7]

Got this incorrect on my first attempt so here's my attempt at a detailed breakdown.
My initial mental prephrase tells me maybe satisfaction is relative/ based on how residents feel they're doing in comparison to neighboring/ other areas they see/ interact with.

A. aspects compared to residents in adjacent areas are out of scope - we want to figure out why residents of L have changed their satisfaction despite conditions improving. I guess I can see how someone might try to fit this as an answer if you assume adjacent residents opinions have influenced L but even then we need to know the aspects they have shifted their care to now are have not improved despite general conditions improving. It's a far stretch

I wrote the above before discovering below I made the incorrect leap that conditions improved. What it should read is we want to figure out why residents of L are now dissatisfied despite their conditions now being in line with national average.

B. Initially I eliminated this because I thought this contradicted the premise of the question which states 10 year ago living conditions below average to this year living conditions are at average. I made the incorrect assumption that below average to average that means living conditions improved but now I realize there can be 2 different averages for these 2 different points in time. Although now L is at average, the nation's overall average could have decreased in that 10 year period.
C. Gov polices/ public demand is out of scope. Although I'm wondering if "established" is referring to created (ie built better roads) or stated (you should expect betters roads). If it's referring to created, it doesn't explain why there is still dissatisfaction. If it's referring to stated I can see how giving residents a new, possibly better view of optimal living conditions can lead to dissatisfaction due to a higher standard but this does not address the change of living standards to meet the nations average.
D. This does nothing to the argument since it doesn't apply to the scenario in the premise. Maybe you can make the jump 10 years ago residents satisfied -> did not perceive need of improvement. Therefore living conditions wouldn't have improved. Going back to my explanation for B we actually don't know if conditions improved. The problem is tricking up to assume the move from below average to average means there was an improvement. This happens if you don't notice there can be 2 different averages for 2 different points in time.
E. This only addresses 1 of the 2 points in time discussed - Why did the residents change their satisfaction?

Would love feedback on the explanation