- Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:19 pm
Well, you've left me with two rather arduous tasks: trying to comment on what is a rather convincing argument as to the merits of B in this particular question, as well as addressing your more general concern! I shall attempt to do both now.
Firstly, in terms of this question, as convincing as your argument, I'm not sure I understand how B addresses the paradox, even indirectly. And maybe it is too indirect for me to even discern; however, let me attempt to elaborate on my perspective as to B, and why it doesn't address the issue in this question.
Now, what exactly is the issue here? Well, the issue is that jobs are being lost in the logging and wood processing components of the timber industry, in spite of the fact that wood taken (productivity of at least one portion of the industry) has increased. I don't know about you, and in general you really shouldn't do this, but I immediately one word: AUTOMATION! or maybe ROBOTS! (I got a little scared). The idea being, well jobs are being lost because they're not needed; in fact, the industry as a whole appears as productive as ever. This would have certainly been my prephrase. The paradox we're trying to explain (which is so readily explained by robots, since hey, AI appears to be knocking at the door) is why we're losing jobs but not losing productivity, since you would think that the jobs are needed for productivity, but it appears to not be the case, hence the paradox.
Does B address this paradox? I don't think so. B explains that demand has increased and the total number of acres of timberland fell; in other words (for the second part) whatever was taken from the land was more in total number of acres than anything given back or replanted. Notice that neither of the statements touches upon, even indirectly with the issues. The idea that demand has increased doesn't indirectly mean that supply has increased, at least not in terms of standard microeconomics. Now you might assume that, indirectly, or directly based on assumption, that the supply has increased to meet the demand, but notice that that's an unstated assumption that you would have to read into B to make it work. This indirection, while perhaps explanatory of the latter part of the paradox, doesn't actually, even indirectly, address the paradox. If the supply increased, why were jobs lost? Wouldn't we need more workers???
But no! You say, well, the "total number of acres" of timberland, thus eliminating... what exactly? So remember, Ravonia, I'm assuming, is a fake country, so we don't actually know how big it is. But what we do know, is that it is that the total number of acres of timberland there is probably not on any given day covered inch by inch with workers in the timber industry. Thus, the depletion of total number of acres (by how much, the answer choice failed to state), wouldn't necessarily affect, nor be expected to affect the number of workers in the timber industry. This is especially true, considering that all of the workers are probably not out in the forests cutting, but a good percentage are probably in factory and even desk jobs at processing facilities. This latter part is me taking my own real world knowledge into the question, but I do believe it is a fairly "common sensible" assumption.
Therefore, I really don't think, even indirectly, the idea of the lowering of total acreage of timberland during the time period would even, indirectly, constitute evidence to resolve this particular paradox. As a final nail, notice that C actually does contemplate the loss of jobs being those jobs in the wood processing component of the industry, thus not necessarily a loss of jobs requiring physical presence in the forests themselves. This is an important giveaway that not all the jobs are in the forests, thus total job loss wouldn't necessarily occur due to the acreage loss.
Let me know if you have further questions on this first part; but I do think, even indirectly, B is simply not as strong of an answer at directly addressing the nature of the paradox, which as you may recall is the task at hand (directly addressing the paradox) for these types of questions.
And this brings me to your second question. When answering resolve the paradox, you want to directly address the paradox itself. So, the paradox will be the result of two seemingly conflicting facts or ideas. Your task is to find an answer choice that actively and directly explains (resolves) how both of these seemingly conflicting ideas can be true at the same time. The answer choice will typically show how this conflicting situation arose, and will directly address the facts that gave rise to the issue.
Now, your question contemplates the situation where the correct answer seemingly does not address both of the facts directly that gave rise to the paradox. The correct answer doesn't have to address both facts as long as it explains or gives reason to how both facts can be true at the same time.. This is what you are looking for in resolve the paradox answer choices. What additional fact or explanation helps to resolve the seemingly contradictory nature of the facts presented.
As an example, answer choice C here, the correct answer here directly addresses the contradiction here, by showing that the percentage of timber cut in Ravonia being processed is not as high as it used to be. Therefore, there is less demand for workers working in the wood processing part of the industry. This helps to explain why jobs are being lost, yet production of timber has increased. It may not be the best explanation, but it certainly presents facts that cohere all the facts presented in the stimulus. And this is what the correct answer of a resolve the paradox question needs to do.
Let me know if this helps explain your questions. (my fingers are crossed on this one; it was indeed an arduous task!)