LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 bricbas
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: Apr 20, 2016
|
#23923
C seems to me to be attempting to say that the total number of jobs lost were all from wood processing divisions and not from logging divisions. So great, the country doesn't have to worry about the x amount of workers who process the wood because processing isn't an issue here, but they still need loggers to gather the unprocessed materials. If they even lost one logger, it doesn't explain how they are able to make up for the increase extraction percentage, even if its a very small amount of wood. Maybe they aren't trying their hardest, I don't know it doesn't say, so it doesn't account for it.

So basically in order for C to be right it seems I'd have to assume that loss of jobs in logging and wood processing, really means loss of jobs in just wood processing? Help me out here am I wrong?
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 4707
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#24051
Hi Bricbas,

Thanks for the question! You've correctly identified the broader categorization of "wood processing," which is definitely driving the correct answer here. But, I'd say you are being too rigid in interpreting the possible job loss in logging. We don't need to assume that no jobs were lost there, so let's take a look at that more closely and see why.

First, when most students read this stimulus, one prephrase they formulate is that logging technology has gotten better. That is, fewer workers can be used to get more wood from the forest. For example, maybe a new automated saw was created, and now you don't need many workers at all in the forests but at the same time you can extract more wood. Now, as we know, the answers never go in that direction, and (C) then opens up the wood processing angle which allows us to see that logging and wood processing aren't the same. But, we are talking about a 10 year period in the stimulus, and we don't have to assume that all other conditions remain identical over such a long period. Because of that, it would be possible for some logging jobs to be lost without a corresponding loss in production (and indeed, an increase in production). In answer choice (C) then, you could have the majority of jobs lost in wood processing, and then some jobs lost in logging, but due to other improvements in the process, that would still allow for more wood to be taken from the forests. In this sense, answer choice (C) does the most to help us understand how we could arrive at such a paradoxical result of job loss vs greater production. It's an unusual answer in that it is not the one we perhaps expected after reading the stimulus, but using the information in the answer allows us to see a new way to explain the paradox.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!
 sgd2114
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: Jul 14, 2017
|
#38879
Hi,

I understand how (C) explains one side of the paradox (the decrease in unemployement). But how does this actively resolve both sides of the paradox - that is, how does this answer choice explain why the amount of wood taken from the forests increased by 10%? In our class, and in the course book, there was particular emphasis on active resolution of both sides in a Resolve question. I don't understand how that happens here.

Is it because of the distinction between logging and wood processing? (C) suggests that the lost jobs are in the processing sub-sector of the timber industry, not the logging side. So it allows for the 10% increase to occur on the logging side. However, it doesn't point to a reason why the increase would occur.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you!
 AthenaDalton
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: May 02, 2017
|
#39324
Hi sgd,

You're right that answer choice (C) doesn't present a clear-cut explanation for both sides of the paradox -- in fact none of these answer choices do! To get there, we have to read between the lines a bit.

During this particular decade, the country of Ravonia saw an overall decrease in the logging and wood-processing industry of 15 percent. During the same period, wood harvesting (logging) increased by 10 percent.

Then we learn in answer choice (C) that during this same time period, Ravonia has increasingly been exporting unprocessed wood.

To put this all together, we have to infer that there was an increase in logging (and probably logging jobs) that accounted for the 10 percent increase in timber harvesting, as well as a corresponding decrease in the processing field. Although it's not stated, we can infer that the decrease in wood-processing jobs was probably much greater than 15 percent, and that this figure is offset by a boost in logging jobs.

Consider this example: in 1977, Ravonia employed 50 loggers and 50 wood processors (100 total), who together cut down 50 units of wood and processed 50 units of wood per year. By 1987, Ravonia employed 60 loggers and 25 wood processors (85 total), who cut down 60 units of wood and processed 25 units of wood per year. Using this example, the overall number of people employed in the timber industry decreased, but the decrease really just impacted the processing section of the industry, not the logging section. The boost in loggers explains the increase in wood cut down, even while processing jobs disappeared.

I hope that helps clarify things for you. Good luck studying!

Athena
 SammyWu11201
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: Jun 29, 2020
|
#82555
I'm struggling to see how B is not the right answer. After reading the comments above on Answer Choice C, I understand how AC C works to resolve the paradox, but wouldn't B also? If B is true, then there would be more wood taken from the forest, even though the forests' size is shrinking, because there is that high demand that needs to be satisfied.
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#83730
Hi Sammy!

Answer choice (B) might explain why more wood was taken from the forests in Ravonia (because there's a higher demand for wood products) but it doesn't explain why there was that decrease in logging and wood processing jobs.

Remember with a Resolve the Paradox question, we're trying to explain both sides of the paradox. So in this case, we're trying to explain why there would be a decrease in employment in the timber industry in Ravonia even as more wood is being taken from the forests in Ravonia. How are they taking more wood but employing fewer people in logging and wood processing?

Answer choice (B) doesn't explain the loss of the logging and wood processing jobs so it does not resolve the paradox.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
User avatar
 jonathan95129
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: Jun 07, 2021
|
#89072
KelseyWoods wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:11 am Hi Sammy!

Answer choice (B) might explain why more wood was taken from the forests in Ravonia (because there's a higher demand for wood products) but it doesn't explain why there was that decrease in logging and wood processing jobs.

Remember with a Resolve the Paradox question, we're trying to explain both sides of the paradox. So in this case, we're trying to explain why there would be a decrease in employment in the timber industry in Ravonia even as more wood is being taken from the forests in Ravonia. How are they taking more wood but employing fewer people in logging and wood processing?

Answer choice (B) doesn't explain the loss of the logging and wood processing jobs so it does not resolve the paradox.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
I'm still unclear why C is definitively better than B. C directly addresses only one side of the paradox while B indirectly addresses both sides.

In C: It directly addresses that the processing industry has taken a hit due to increased demand for unprocessed wood. However, it does not address the increased demand for wood overall since it simply states that an increased proportion of unprocessed wood is being exported. By all means, if the question stem had said that the amount of wood taken from the forests instead decreased by 10% or 99%, this answer would also work. That is why I had originally thought it to not resolve the paradox, because it doesn't suggest at all that there is more wood being taken from the forests.

In B, on the other hand: indirectly addresses both sides of the paradox. Decreased acreage in timberland implied an answer to why jobs were lost while increased demand served to address, albeit not directly and definitively, why more wood had been taken.

LSAT is frequently a test of common sense and I figured this is one of those moments where I needed to use common sense to recognize that reduced natural resources translated to lost jobs for timber industries. Granted, the second half of B does not guarantee an increase in wood taken from the forests, but at least it suggests a potential resolution to the second half of the paradox. In answer choice A, although it directly addresses one side of the paradox, it leaves the other half up to significant interpretation.

In a previous tutor's explanation of A, we had to figure that the logging industry grew significantly to explain the increased wood production and compensate for lost jobs in the processing industry. I learned to be wary of BS (Big Story) answers where one needs to develop a somewhat extensive background story/interpretation to make an answer choice work. For me, answer choice B represented a smaller job since I felt that (more demand) -> (more wood) and (less forests) -> (less jobs) was a smaller jump than (more unprocessed wood) -> (more logging jobs explain the increased wood taken from forests).

In the future, when presented with two answer choices in which one indirectly touches on both sides of the paradox and another directly explains one side but omits the other, what choice should I go with?
User avatar
 atierney
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: Jul 06, 2021
|
#89147
Hi Jonathan,

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!)
User avatar
 jonathan95129
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: Jun 07, 2021
|
#89248
Thank you so much. This is incredibly helpful, especially the last two meaty paragraphs. I typically have no problems with paradox questions but this one threw me in for a ride!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.