LR Question 20 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Adjusted for inflation, the income earned from wool…
QUESTION TYPE: Paradox
PARADOX: The family earned more from wool, but didn’t get richer overall.
The family earned more from wool because they sold much more internationally, and international prices rose.
ANALYSIS: Several answers talk about low domestic wool prices. Who cares?! The family was selling dramatically more wool internationally. Besides, the first sentence literally says that the family earned more money from wool. A lot more money! There’s no doubt about this.
So the family is poorer, even though they’re raking in cash from wool. Use your common sense (you’re allowed). If you sell wool, you have sheep. We use sheep for many things: meat, sheep’s milk, cheese, etc. So it’s quite likely that the family made money from these as well. Answer C says that the family lost money on non-wool sales.
___________
- This answer would have been right if it said that prices in general rose faster than international wool prices.” The family’s additional earnings were coming from international sales, so that’s the price that matters.
- This sounds tempting. But this family sold a lot more wool abroad, at higher prices. And the first sentence says that the family earned more from wool sales. There’s zero doubt on that point.
- CORRECT. This is the only answer that explains how wool sellers could lose money, even if they are making more money from wool. Maybe this family only made 30% of its money from wool, and the rest from sheepskin and mutton sales.
- This talks about Australian wool producers in general. But the question is only about a specific family. This family is earning lots more from international wool sales. Presumably they’re doing well even with the increased competition.
- This answer doesn’t explain why a wool farmer could lose money even though wool sales are increasing. Don’t focus on whether an answer could be true – you need to pay attention to whether it explains the paradox.
Recap: The question begins with “Adjusted for inflation, the income earned from”. It is a Paradox question. To practice more Paradox questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Paradox Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Paradox questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers paradox questions.
Graeme,
Thank you for all your hard work. I’m still having trouble seeing why D is not the correct answer. The stimulus only indicates the family is selling wool, not mutton or any of the other entrails from sheep. Thanks again!
Because D contradicts the stimulus. The stimulus clearly says the family earned more from wool.
As for C, it says those products are produced by all wool farmers. So, unless this is a family of fools who throws away saleable mutton, they probably do sell it. Certainly the info “most helps” to resolve the paradox.
Hi Grameme,
Can we eliminate answer choice A, based on the fact that it talks about a different period of time?
we are assessing 1840-1860, but this answer choice talks about “at the end of the 1800”. can we infer that this period is after 1880?
Thanks
I eliminated (A) for the reason that Graeme does in the explanation. But, I do think you could make the case that even if (A) said “the wholesale price of wool sold internationally,” it would still be incorrect because it’s referring to the end of the 1800s and not 1840-1860.
Thanks for the explanations Graeme. I think you’re misinterpreting what (A) says though. (A) states “…prices in general in Australia…” Given this interpretation, (A) is a far more appealing answer choice and is the answer choice that I initially chose. It also fit with my pre-phrase; my pre-phrase was something like “well given that they did earn more income, but didn’t see a rise in their prosperity, maybe prices of goods and services in Australia rose dramatically.” (A) was a great fit to my pre-phrase. I see why (C) is correct, but still have trouble eliminating (A).
Thanks.
Best,
Joshua
You’re still thinking in terms of confirming your prephrase. Whenever there are two answers that seem right, you have to ask “how does this NOT match my prephrase?”
The prices in general rising in Australia is the good part of the answer. That helps make A a good answer.
But the other half is wrong. A would have been right if it said “Prices in general in Australia rose faster than INTERNATIONAL wool prices”
But it said domestic. The point of the argument was that the family was making more money on INTERNATIONAL wool sales. A doesn’t tell us if the domestic cost of living was rising faster than international wool.
I edited my explanation for A to make this clearer. Does it make more sense with what I’ve written now?
Ah yeah, that helps a lot, thanks. I was under the impression that the phrase “Adjusted for inflation…” at the beginning of the stimulus is what allows you to eliminate (A). Yet, your explanation makes more sense.
Grameme,
Thanks so much for your work! I got LSAT 71, Logical Reasoning I, Q20 wrong because I was thinking along a very different angle. It never occurred to me to think about the OTHER products derived from sheep, in addition to wool. But I chose answer A, because my brain wavelength was, “If they’re making a lot more income but not enjoying a commensurate increase in prosperity, there’s a good chance their EXPENSES increased for some reason.” That’s why I bit off on answer choice (A). I realize the price of domestic wool in Austrailia is not relevant, but it says “prices in general in Australia rose,” which seemed to link easily to my already-primed brain. Tough one!
Thanks,
Ryan
Happy to help! A lot of people ask me about this one, actually.
You had a good prephrase, it just wasn’t the only possibility. I stay flexible with prephrases, as there are often multiple ways a question could potentially be solved. But only one will show up in the answers.
A was definitely a trap answer. Remember that you’re NEVER just looking for the right words. You’re looking for the right CONCEPT. So you have to figure out what the words mean. Answer A is actually really vague. It could mean that domestic wool prices increased one percent, and living costs increased 2%.