Q20 - Adjusted for Inflation

[rezamza]

Gonna try and evaluate this paradox and provide a description for why I believe each answer to be wrong right. Id love feedback if Ive misrepresented or misunderstood anything about this problem…

The problem basically states that for a particular family of sheep farmers, between 1840-1860, that despite an increase in the proportion and amount of wool they sold internationally, and a subsequent increase in their income, they were unable to gain an equivalent rise in prosperity…even though there too was a rise in the price of wool on the international market (as compared to the price of wool on the domestic market). No how could this be?

A) States a fact about prices at the end of the 1800s. This might be relevant, though it doesn't explain why the increase in income did not equate to an increase in prosperity.

B) This is the answer I originally chose in a hurry because I believed that if a decrease in price of domestic wool was substantial enough, it would have balanced out the increase in the price and quantity supplied to the international market. I now realize how much extra analysis that required and am bummed at having made that mistake. REMEMBER NOT TO DO THIS!!!

C) States that both the international and domestic prices for the products produced from sheep farming other than wool fell sharply (substantially) during the period in question. It also states that ALL sheep farmers produce such products…which would explain why it would be possible for sheepers to increase their income from internationally-traded wool, but not gain prosperity because some of the other products for which they rely on a portion of their income, dropped suddenly. This is the right answer.

D) Competition during the period in question has no bearing on whether we can decipher how this family was able to increase income earned from wool, but not increase prosperity. Its understandable, but doesn't resolve the discrepancy.

E) Similarly to D, this answer implies that competition was the reason for stagnant prosperity, yet I don't think it explains the discrepancy of how income from wool rises while overall prosperity doesn't.

Id love other peoples' input on how some of the wrong answers are wrong and how the right answer is right.



Thanks and hope this helps!

[rachellewrx]

Thank you for your explanation.

I initially chose A during PT. But during review, I think the reason why A is wrong is that it says the price in general rose more rapidly while the stimulus already told us that the income was " adjusted for inflation".

Is this an acceptable explanation? Is the definition of inflation considered a common sense by LSAC ?

[cacrv]

I think the reason why A is wrong is that it says the price in general rose more rapidly while the stimulus already told us that the income was " adjusted for inflation".

I believe the reason why A is wrong is that it compares the living cost of Australia to the domestic price of wool; we've already been told in the stimulus that the family managed to generate more income through their wool sales, thanks to the international market. So whether the cost of living in Australia is rising faster than the domestic price of wool is irrelevant because we're trying to explain why the family made more money on their wool sales but couldn't enjoy the expected prosperity that normally accompanies higher income.

C introduces another premise by telling us that this family had another income source, non-wool related sheet products. If this source of their income feel sharply during this period, then the fact that wool sales increased does not necessarily translate to higher net income for the family, and this is a good explanation of why the family failed to enjoy prosperity despite having made more money on wool sales.

[zdlsat]

B) This is the answer I originally chose in a hurry because I believed that if a decrease in price of domestic wool was substantial enough, it would have balanced out the increase in the price and quantity supplied to the international market. I now realize how much extra analysis that required and am bummed at having made that mistake. REMEMBER NOT TO DO THIS!!!

Let me further explain this part. Answer B says" ...generated more income from selling their wool, they failed to enjoy a commensurate increase in prosperity." so author accepts the fact that they make more money from SELLING WOOL, which include internationally and domestic. "commensurate" means in proportion. I think, author here is comparing total prosperity with profit from selling wool, which means there are other incomes rather than selling wool, but this part income somehow doesn't increase as many percentage as selling wool, or even lose money.

Therefore, whether they sell more or less domestically doesn't really matter, we need to find out other type of profit.

This is what I think about answer B. Hope that helps.

[hwangbo.edu]

Could a smart Geek address these two points?

1. How can Answer B be ruled out as incorrect? We know from the stimulus that the "percentage and amount of wool that this family sold internationally increased dramatically during that period." If so, two inferences must be true:

a. The percentage of wool sold internationally during that period initially began dramatically less; otherwise, how could it have increased dramatically?

b. The percentage of wool not sold internationally was instead sold domestically; otherwise, what's the alternative?

Therefore, since the family during that period sold some wool domestically, Answer B successfully resolves the apparent paradox.

2. How can Answer C be guaranteed correct? Answer C fails to specify that its items produced were actually sold. Without this assumption, the items produced could have instead been eaten or used by the same sheep farmer families, thereby avoiding relative losses from any sale. Therefore, without an additional assumption that its items were actually sold, Answer C fails to resolve the apparent paradox.

[Didius Falco]

Second Question first. C contributes facts that, together with commonsense inferences, present a plausible explanation of the paradox (note the stem language---"which one...would...help most resolve the apparent paradox...?"). Paradox answers do not need to be independently sufficient to fully ensure an explanation is acceptable--they just need to present facts that clearly point the way to that explanation.

First question now. You overlook the language in the setup: "the income earned from wool sales....grew substantially". This is an absolute statement. We know as a foundational premise, therefore, that the total income from all wool sales (foreign and domestic) was growing and positive. Even if the family in question was selling some domestic wool, and the price dropped very low, we can still infer that the international sales must have compensated and more, because "the [total] income earned from wool sales....grew substantially". So a close reading reveals clearly that any reference to falling domestic prices is unhelpful in resolving how increasing income from overall wool sales could result in decreasing prosperity.

[hwangbo.edu]

Hey, thanks for the response. I understand your main points (and in general tend to agree with them) but for this specific problem my two questions and their attendant points remain unaddressed.

First question. You overlook the language in the setup: "the income earned from wool sales....grew substantially". This is an absolute statement. We know as a foundational premise, therefore, that the total income from all wool sales (foreign and domestic) was growing and positive. Even if the family in question was selling some domestic wool, and the price dropped very low, we can still infer that the international sales must have compensated and more, because "the [total] income earned from wool sales....grew substantially". So a close reading reveals clearly that any reference to falling domestic prices is unhelpful in resolving how increasing income from overall wool sales could result in decreasing prosperity.

For the first question, I did read the language very closely and, actually, your interpretation is mistaken. The stimulus states "failed to enjoy a commensurate increase in prosperity" (i.e., commensurate with "more income from selling their wool") rather than, as you stated, "decreasing prosperity." In other words, prosperity failed to increase as much as income increased - this is the paradox in question. To rule out Answer B as incorrect, simply look at my inferences and explain how they are incorrect - then I would agree Answer B could be ruled out. But if my inferences remain sound, then I submit Answer B cannot be ruled out.

Second Question. C contributes facts that, together with commonsense inferences, present a plausible explanation of the paradox (note the stem language---"which one...would...help most resolve the apparent paradox...?"). Paradox answers do not need to be independently sufficient to fully ensure an explanation is acceptable--they just need to present facts that clearly point the way to that explanation.

For the second question, you are correct that LSAC adds the word "most" to the question stem but it's simply intended as a CYA rather than the best among possibly more than one acceptable answer or, as you suggest ("help most resolve"), one that is reasonable yet possibly less than "sufficient" answer. In truth, every LSAT question has one credited response that is 100% provable correct, and four answers that are 100% provable incorrect. I specified "guaranteed correct" in this context (rather than seeking a 100% "sufficient" solution) because Answer C absolutely relies on an assumption for which I provided a plausible alternative to highlight the term shift between "produced" and "sold." I would normally agree with "common sense" assumptions - but this is the LSAT, which punishes even lesser term shifts. Thus, my point stands.

[Didius Falco]

Again, going in reverse order.

"For the second question, you are correct that LSAC adds the word "most" to the question stem but it's simply intended as a CYA rather than the best among possibly more than one acceptable answer or, as you suggest ("help most resolve"), one that is reasonable yet possibly less than "sufficient" answer. In truth, every LSAT question has one credited response that is 100% provable correct, and four answers that are 100% provable incorrect. I specified "guaranteed correct" in this context (rather than seeking a 100% "sufficient" solution) because Answer C absolutely relies on an assumption for which I provided a plausible alternative to highlight the term shift between "produced" and "sold." I would normally agree with "common sense" assumptions - but this is the LSAT, which punishes even lesser term shifts. Thus, my point stands."

You are, unfortunately, incorrect on this point in several ways. The standard of proof required of LSAT questions in the Logical Reasoning Section varies; depending on the nature of the stem and the circumstance. For instance; "Must be True" questions are (essentially) 100% provable. "Most strongly supported questions" are decidedly not so. 1 of the 4 answers is clearly the best. But it is not always formally deducible from the available information. It just depends on the question stem. 4 Answers are 'wrong', and 1 answer is 'right'. However, the correct answer may not be flawless and perfect--nor derivable with absolute certainty by formal logic. It is simply the clear best. It just depends on the question type.

It is to complex a subject to summarize here. I will just say that I would be sure you are familiar with the variations on common question types and what it is they are looking for; otherwise you will no doubt meet frustration with questions which lack 100% provability. If you need clarification on this fairly nuanced side of the lsat, I recommend you explore the forum, or the MLSAT Logical Reasoning Guide, in detail. It is demonstrated many times a section in every test.


As to the wool......

Lets use some numbers, and see if we can get to the heart of the problem here.

Year 1: (Say) $100 was the family's previous net profit from wool sales (profit domestic+ profit foreign).

Year 2: (Say) $200 was the family's new net profit (profit foreign + profit domestic)

Now, (the question introduces that) despite the fact that their income doubled (in my hypothetical rendering) their prosperity did not double! (In other words---"increase" commensurately).

Our task is to explain how this could be.
If I were to tell you that domestic wool prices dropped even lower than before (as (B) does), what would that mean?

It would mean......nothing. The total profit on wool sales doubled from 100 to 200 dollars. This is established, and it is certain. How is this possible if the domestic wool prices dropped sharply?
IDK. There are many possibilities. Maybe the foreign prices spiked sufficiently high to compensate and more, still resulting in a doubling of income? Maybe the family sold less wool domestically? Who knows. who cares?

The important point is what we do know. What we do know, for a fact, is that the income from wool went from 100 to 200, but their 'prosperity $' (to quantify this) increased less than $100.

(C) explains this clearly---by showing that some other part of their total income from all sources combined fell (non-wool products). The background premises of this question do not establish what happened to the total profit from products that are not wool, so this is fair game.

(B) Fails to explain this. Because regardless of what happened to domestic wool prices (or foreign ones for that matter) the stem determines that the profit on wool rose sharply from (in my rendering here) $100 to $200. You can't introduce evidence that would counter these facts---its just the nature of the background to this paradox question.

To hit this point on the head one more time---lets use a fantastically exaggerated example and my hypothetical numbers. Lets establish that the family must sell half its wool to foreign markets, and half to domestic (this will be stable in our hypothetical case). In year 1, lets say the family earns $50 domestically, and $50 from foreign markets ($100 year 1 profits total from wool).
Now imagine that (B) is true, and that domestic profits fell to $0 in year 2! Somehow, for argument's sake, the family is still giving away half their wool to their domestic compatriots. What do we know? We know that year 2 profits must still be $200. So, we know that the foreign profits must have quadrupled!

Crazy stuff. Does it resolve how the family's $200 of profit resulted in less than $200 of prosperity though? Nope. It does not.



I hope this is helpful hwangbo.edu. I really would recommend you spend some time digging into the questions types, as it is the most important issue raised in this discussion for overall logical reasoning success. Attacking every question as though it were held to the "Must be True" standard is a recipe for confusion.

[hwangbo.edu]

Appreciate you taking time to respond again. Wanted to clarify a nuance in "standard of proof" for LSAT questions. Also, I now agree with your point about Answer B - thinking about a response forced me to correct my mistaken interpretation of "income" (as profit and not as revenue) so thank you again!

The standard of proof required of LSAT questions in the Logical Reasoning Section varies; depending on the nature of the stem and the circumstance. For instance; "Must be True" questions are (essentially) 100% provable. "Most strongly supported questions" are decidedly not so. 1 of the 4 answers is clearly the best. But it is not always formally deducible from the available information. It just depends on the question stem. 4 Answers are 'wrong', and 1 answer is 'right'. However, the correct answer may not be flawless and perfect--nor derivable with absolute certainty by formal logic. It is simply the clear best. It just depends on the question type.

I hope this is helpful hwangbo.edu. I really would recommend you spend some time digging into the questions types, as it is the most important issue raised in this discussion for overall logical reasoning success. Attacking every question as though it were held to the "Must be True" standard is a recipe for confusion.

You conflate two distinct aspects of an LSAT LR question. First aspect is the degree of logical proof being tested (which varies by question type) ranging from, for example, not necessarily true/false (e.g., weaken/strengthen) to guaranteed absolutes (e.g., SA/MBT/MBF). The second aspect is correctness (which is the same standard for every question - or LSAC would not have published it) for which the credited response is 100% provable correct, and the other four responses are 100% provable incorrect.

(B) Fails to explain this. Because regardless of what happened to domestic wool prices (or foreign ones for that matter) the stem determines that the profit on wool rose sharply from (in my rendering here) $100 to $200. You can't introduce evidence that would counter these facts---its just the nature of the background to this paradox question.

Good point about "income" (which I incorrectly conflated as "revenue") actually meaning "profit" - which rules out Answer B.

[Didius Falco]

I think we are both going around and around on the 'standard of proof discussion', when we are actually mostly in agreement

I'm glad I could help with (B)

Best

[mshinners]

Thanks for posting yingxxgao! You're spot on about why (C) is correct, but let's go into some detail about why (A) is wrong.

This is a great example of how oversimplifying the stimulus can be dangerous! On Explain the Discrepancy questions, the first step is to identify the two things that together are WEIRD.

It's tempting to simplify this situation into:

A: Aussie sheep farmer family income rose in period
B: Aussie sheep farmer family prosperity did not increase in period.

But that's not quite accurate. The income of this family only increased in one particular area - the income from wool sales. We don't know that their overall income level increased. Fixing this error would leave us with this:

A: Aussie sheep farmer family wool-sales-income rose in period
B: Aussie sheep farmer family prosperity did not increase in period

Now, this is accurate, but we've left out a piece of information that's actually pretty useful - why did the wool-sales-income rise? Was it because the price of wool increased? No! It was because the family switched from selling domestically (for a lower price) to selling internationally (for a higher price). There's no indication that wool prices were changing at all, in either market.

We need a way to explain how the family's overall financial balance (prosperity) did not increase, even though one subcategory of the family's income increased. Two classic ways to do that would be 1) to show that other income categories could have decreased enough to counteract the increase or 2) show that costs could have risen enough to counteract the increase.

(A) attempts to do the latter. However, it pits rising prices against rising wool costs. The increase in wool-sales-income did not occur because of rising wool costs, but rather because the family switched from a lower cost market to a higher cost market.

If we were going to use 'rising prices' as an explanation, the prices would need to potentially increase by as much as the new income increased from that switch. And (A) doesn't give us that, regardless of whether it said "domestically" or "internationally".

(C) gives us the information about other categories of income though! This tells us the a number of other income categories sharply decreased for the family. Thus, it's entirely possible that this decrease more than made up for the increase in wool-sales-income, thus leaving the family with a final financial picture that was essentially unchanged (or possibly even worse!).

If we had misread the stimulus to suggest that the family's aggregate income had increased, this answer choice would have appeared to be irrelevant. That's the trap!



Let's take a quick look at the remaining incorrect answers:
(B) This answer attempts to suggest another subcategory of income decreases. After all, the family is still selling some of their wool domestically. However, the stimulus already told us that the aggregate income earned from ALL wool sales had increased. It doesn't matter how the income breaks down within the category 'all wool sales', since we know it increased as a whole.

(D) This again suggests the possibility of decreases in income from some wool sales. But the stimulus already told us that this family had a net increase in their wool-sales-income. If we have any interesting income decreases, they need to be from something other than wool-sales.

(E) The percentage of wool farmers who do anything is not relevant unless it has some impact on this particular family's income or costs. How many farmers make their living off the international wool market does neither.


On difficult Explain a Discrepancy questions, be sure that you've accurately identified what the elements are that seem paradoxical together!

Please let me know if this completely answers your question!


#officialexplanation

[DabinL142]

Hi, I get why C is the correct answer but I was a bit hesitant between C and D.
Can’t less favorable position itself be considered as the reason why they did not gain commensurate prosperity?
I feel that this “less favorable” wording is a bit vague and leaves room for interpretation. I just thought this could mean that they would have less leisure time or sth. Or am I assuming too much things here?

[Gerald]

One of the subtlest difficulties on a test whose whole deal is to make us doubt and challenge the logic of everything is remembering that there are some things we can never doubt, no matter how crazy they may seem: premises and other things presented as fact.

For example, if someone next to me on a bus were to mutter, “The world is flat, therefore if you sail past Australia you fall off the edge and will glimpse the Great A’Tuin, the world turtle upon whose back we ride, as you plummet to your eternal death.” I would get off at the next stop and catch another bus because, I mean, that’s all cray cray.

But if the LSAT tells me the same thing, I now know, incontrovertibly, that the world is in fact flat. The only thing I’m allowed to question is, if the flatness means you in fact fall off, or, if instead you kind of, like, flip to the other side or something. Or, if you do fall off, do you fall off near Australia? Or is the edge closer to, say, Cleveland? Or if the edge is by Australia, will you actually see the world turtle or will you asphyxiate first? etc.

So, there’s a lot I’m expected to question, in fact there are an infinite number of assumptions to many arguments, but there’s also something I’m explicitly disallowed from questioning (flatness), and when we get into “question everything” mode we often forget those things we must accept.

I think that’s what happened here.

Answer D would make it, seemingly, more difficult for a wool farmer to make ends meet by selling wool, because competition is fierce! The wool cartels are burning down farms and, uhm, throwing paint on trainloads of pristine wools if you don’t pay your protection money. Losses pile up. You start to wonder if maybe you should have just been an accountant even though you hate math and no one uses accountants anyway because Australia is a colony of outlaws and outlaws don’t pay their taxes.

The problem is, despite this cutthroat world of wool pirates, the stimulus straight told me, “The income earned from wool sales by a certain family of Australian sheep farmers grew substantially.”

D wants me to question this fact. But I’m not allowed to question this fact, just as I’d not be allowed to question if the world were indeed flat, no matter how much I might want to. That’s why D is wrong.