## #5 - In the city of Glasgow, Scotland, trade doubled between

Administrator
PowerScore Staff

Posts: 6662
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Points: 3,335

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the ParadoxX. The correct answer choice is (E)

Here we learn about Glasgow between 1750 and 1765. For some reason, during the fifteen years between banks opening and bank regulation, trade doubled.

The stimulus is followed by an Except question, which means that the four incorrect answer choices will help to explain this doubling, and the correct answer choice will not.

Answer choice (A): This choice provides a reason that we might expect to see such an increase in trade. Since it does provide a valid explanation, this is an incorrect answer to this Resolve Except question.

Answer choice (B): Like answer choice (A) above, this choice also explains the doubling, and is therefore also incorrect.

Answer choice (C): More efficient financial transactions would also help to explain the doubling of trade in Glasgow during those fifteen years.

Answer choice (D): Improved roads might be expected to lead to increased trade, so this valid explanation is incorrect in response to this Except question.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Since this deals with the effects of the regulation, which came at the end of the referenced period, at 1765, it does not explain the changes that took place between 1750 and 1765. Thus, since this choice is the only one which does not explain the doubling of trade, it is the correct answer choice to this Resolve Except question.
deck1134
LSAT Master

Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:49 am
Points: 162

Hi PowerScore,

How do we conclude that answer choice A contributes to the stimulus. "The early eighteenth century" cannot mean the 1750s, so wouldn't it be wholly irrelevant? That is similar to saying that something that happened in 1902 made trade in the 1950s double. I'm not sure what I am missing here.
Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff

Posts: 2573
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:01 pm
Points: 2,387

The "early 18th century" isn't limited to the first decade of that century, Deck, and could reasonably be interpreted to mean anytime in the first half of the century. Our explanation doesn't have to be limited to within the timeframe given in the stimulus either, but can include trends that began before 1750 but may have continued afterwards. So, if there was a technological revolution that began in, say, 1735, and that revolution contributed to growing trade which continued for the next 30 years or so, that could help to explain the increase in trade between 1750 and 1765. In other words, that doubling of trade in those 15 years could have been part of a larger, longer trend that began earlier in the century! Anything that helps would be a wrong answer in this case, and that additional cause of increased trade could help explain the increase in trade during that time period.

Also, note that the technological revolution itself wasn't limited to the early 18th century, but only started then. Even if it started in 1702, it still could have been going on even 50 or more years later. That might not help very much, but it still helps much more than answer E, which couldn't have had anything to do with the doubling in trade that came BEFORE that regulation took place.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam