An Unsatisfying Paradox Question (PT 17) Forum

[MagnumLifeStyle]

Problem 14, Section 2, PT 17 (a resolve the paradox question).

The argument states that

Between 1977 and 1987, the country of Ravonia lost 12,000 jobs in logging and wood processing, which came to be about a 15% decrease in employment of the country's timber industry. Paradoxically, as the jobs were lost, the amount of wood taken from the forests of Ravoinia increased by 10%.

The correct answer is (C), which states that:

Since 1977, a growing proportion of the timber that has been cut in Ravonia has been exported as raw, unprocessed wood.

The paradox is that as the number of woodcuters and those who process the woods went down, the amount of wood taken from the forest went up.

I can see how if only those who processed wood were laid off, the correct answer choice would perfectly make sense.

But the stimulus states that the number of wood cutters ("jobs in logging") also went down.

If there are less wood cutters, how can there be more wood taken from the wood? <- this is the paradox.

I don't see how answer choice C, that more and more timber was exported as raw, unprocessed wood exactly reconciles that paradox.

The correct answer is unsatisfying IMO because it wasn't only those who processed wood that were laid off, but also wood cutters. If only those who processed wood were laid off, there would be no problem (as more and more wood were exported as raw and unprocessed wood).

But how does the answer choice explain the fact that more wood were brought in when the number of wood cutters went down?

[Nikrall]

Problem 14, Section 2, PT 17 (a resolve the paradox question).

The argument states that

Between 1977 and 1987, the country of Ravonia lost 12,000 jobs in logging and wood processing, which came to be about a 15% decrease in employment of the country's timber industry. Paradoxically, as the jobs were lost, the amount of wood taken from the forests of Ravoinia increased by 10%.

The correct answer is (C), which states that:

Since 1977, a growing proportion of the timber that has been cut in Ravonia has been exported as raw, unprocessed wood.

The paradox is that as the number of woodcuters and those who process the woods went down, the amount of wood taken from the forest went up.

I can see how if only those who processed wood were laid off, the correct answer choice would perfectly make sense.

But the stimulus states that the number of wood cutters ("jobs in logging") also went down.

If there are less wood cutters, how can there be more wood taken from the wood? <- this is the paradox.

I don't see how answer choice C, that more and more timber was exported as raw, unprocessed wood exactly reconciles that paradox.

The correct answer is unsatisfying IMO because it wasn't only those who processed wood that were laid off, but also wood cutters. If only those who processed wood were laid off, there would be no problem (as more and more wood were exported as raw and unprocessed wood).

But how does the answer choice explain the fact that more wood were brought in when the number of wood cutters went down?

You have no idea how many wood cutters were laid off. You only know that in the group of wood cutters AND wood processors, 12,000 jobs were lost. That could mean 20,000 more wood cutting jobs and 32,000 less wood processing jobs.

[suspicious android]

Yeah, as the above poster mentioned, you don't know about the woodcutters vs. other jobs in the wood industry. Basically, I'd paraphrase the question like this:

The woodcutting industry has lost 12k jobs over the last few years. Yet, they're actually cutting down more trees these days. WTF? Oh, they're just exporting raw timber now, they outsourced the processing to cheap overseas labor. Makes sense.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

Thanks guys for taking time to answer my question. Based on your explanations, I sort of get it, but I still have some lingering doubt.

Nikrall,

The argument clearly states that BOTH woodcutters and wood processors lost their jobs. How could one think that 20,000 more wood cutting jobs were added, and 32,000 wood processing jobs were lost? I mean, the math certainly makes sense (lost 32,000, but gained 20,000, thus a net loss of 12,000).

I understand how the answer choice answers one part of the paradox: that because more and more wood were exported as raw the loss of WOOD PROCESSORS didn't have any influence.

But I'm interested in understanding how to explain the INCREASE in the amount of wood taken when there was a clear DECREASE in the number of wood cutters.

To explain the rise in the number of wood gathered from the forest, you seem to be saying that perhaps 20,000 more wood cutting jobs were added.
But the argument clearly states that wood cutters lost their jobs. So how could 20,000 more wood cutting jobs be added?

I understand that I do not know exactly how many wood cutters lost their jobs. I'm thinking that perhaps 1 wood cutter was laid off, and 11,999 wood processors were laid off. Is this the correct way to think this?

[MagnumLifeStyle]

suspicious android,

I get the part about the processing taking place elsewhere (actually, there might not be a need to outsource the processing jobs overseas, because all Ravonia might be concerned with is exporting raw timber).

But how would you explain the INCREASE in the amount of timber taken when there's a DECREASE in the number of wood cutters?

[Nulli Secundus]

I guess, if they started preferring raw & unprocessed imports, they are no longer bound by the processing capacity of the country's industry.

See, there is no data indicating wood cutters of Ravonia were working at full capacity, maybe the people in wood processing were working at full capacity instead so they started selling the wood unprocessed, saw this is just as profitable so they shifted whole industry to this path and thus, now unfettered by the processing capacity they started cutting more wood. The woodcutters that got laid off might be the victims of a restructurization for all we care.

[Geist13]

I have not looked at the original question, so everything I say is based on your wording of the question. In the LSAT wording is a huge deal. S

At the beginning of your post you say

Between 1977 and 1987, the country of Ravonia lost 12,000 jobs in logging and wood processing

But then when describing the supposed paradox you say

But the stimulus states that the number of wood cutters ("jobs in logging") also went down.

That is an unjustified inference. You are saying that since 12,000 jobs were lost between the two subgroups, that one of the subgroups cannot have gained any members. take all the wood processors and loggers and put them together in one giant group called "wood-processors-and-loggers." take 12,100 of the wood processors away. The group as a whole known as "wood-processors-and-loggers" is smaller by 12,100. Now add 100 loggers. The group as a whole, "wood-processors-and-loggers" is now only smaller by 12,000. However, there are more loggers than when you started even though the group as a whole has decreased in size.

If the question does explicitly say that there are less loggers than previously, there is a second solution:

The fact that there are less loggers, does not necessarily mean that there is less logging that occurs. The loggers could easily be working overtime to compensate for the decrease in amount of loggers.

This is possible because you say:

The paradox is that as the number of woodcuters and those who process the woods went down, the amount of wood taken from the forest went up.

Notice it just says that the wood removed from the forest has increased. Wood removed, in the world of logic, has nothing to do with the amount of people removing the wood. Any number of situations could account for a decrease in workers but an increase in productivity. One does not necessitate the other. Again that is an assumption you are bringing to the table.

[booboo]

I didn't read the whole thread, but think about it like this if you are still not 100% sold. 1 job was lost in logging and 11,999 were lost in processing.

[suspicious android]

But how would you explain the INCREASE in the amount of timber taken when there's a DECREASE in the number of wood cutters?

I don't know.. maybe they fired all the lazy workers and told the rest of them they'd get fired too if output didn't increase. Seriously, this is a common problem people have with questions like this. You don't have to specifically explain every detail, the question stem asks you for what most helps resolve the discrepancy, or something to that effect. As others have noted, the decrease in the number of woodcutters may have been trivial, we just know that a significant number of people in the industry as a whole, and some woodcutters, have lost their jobs. Increasing output with reduced labor force isn't unusual at all, it's happening right now in most of the world.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

Geist13,

Thanks for walking me through the answer choice step-by-step. I can now make sense of what Nikrall was trying to get at.

It's still hard to reconcile myself with the fact that there's no relationship between the number of workers and increase/decrease in output, but I guess I'll have to get used it (especially for LSAT).

Also thanks to suspicious android and others.

[pinkzeppelin]

I disagree with the posters here. Their answers agree with the Kaplan explanation, but I find it entirely unsatisfactory. What they are saying is absolutely correct, and it does resolve the paradox, but what they are saying is NOT part of answer C. The crux of the matter is that more of the wood that has been exported is raw and unprocessed, but this does not imply that there are more loggers! The problem is how you interpret the last sentence of the argument:

"the amount of wood taken from the forests of ravoinia increased by 10%"

You could interpret this as "The amount of trees cut down increased by 10%." But I think if this is what they meant, that's what they would have said. I think they meant it more in an exporting sort of way. If you interpret it as "The amount of wood originating from the forests of ravoinia increased by 10%" then I think you will see how answer choice C makes sense.

So yeah, they lost jobs, and are probably cutting down less trees, but the amount of wood leaving ravoinia is now higher because they aren't processing the wood as much.

[Nikrall]

I disagree with the posters here. Their answers agree with the Kaplan explanation, but I find it entirely unsatisfactory. What they are saying is absolutely correct, and it does resolve the paradox, but what they are saying is NOT part of answer C. The crux of the matter is that more of the wood that has been exported is raw and unprocessed, but this does not imply that there are more loggers! The problem is how you interpret the last sentence of the argument:

"the amount of wood taken from the forests of ravoinia increased by 10%"

You could interpret this as "The amount of trees cut down increased by 10%." But I think if this is what they meant, that's what they would have said. I think they meant it more in an exporting sort of way. If you interpret it as "The amount of wood originating from the forests of ravoinia increased by 10%" then I think you will see how answer choice C makes sense.

So yeah, they lost jobs, and are probably cutting down less trees, but the amount of wood leaving ravoinia is now higher because they aren't processing the wood as much.

The LSAT often says what they mean in convoluted ways.

There is no justification for thinking that "taken" means "exported". Nothing in that sentence mentions exports.

[Rudy]

I disagree with the posters here. Their answers agree with the Kaplan explanation, but I find it entirely unsatisfactory. What they are saying is absolutely correct, and it does resolve the paradox, but what they are saying is NOT part of answer C. The crux of the matter is that more of the wood that has been exported is raw and unprocessed, but this does not imply that there are more loggers! The problem is how you interpret the last sentence of the argument:

"the amount of wood taken from the forests of ravoinia increased by 10%"

You could interpret this as "The amount of trees cut down increased by 10%." But I think if this is what they meant, that's what they would have said. I think they meant it more in an exporting sort of way. If you interpret it as "The amount of wood originating from the forests of ravoinia increased by 10%" then I think you will see how answer choice C makes sense.

So yeah, they lost jobs, and are probably cutting down less trees, but the amount of wood leaving ravoinia is now higher because they aren't processing the wood as much.

The LSAT often says what they mean in convoluted ways.

There is no justification for thinking that "taken" means "exported". Nothing in that sentence mentions exports.

TITCR.

Further, anyone having problems with this is having a serious problem with set overlay, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread already.

Lost ____ jobs in Logging AND Wood processing does not mean jobs were lost in both logging and wood processing. The conjunction "and" forms a new set, "logging and wood processing," from which jobs were lost. Imagine "job lost" as an attribute of members of that set. You are told 12000 people of set L^WP have the attribute "job lost." From this, you make the false inference that this must apply at least partially to all subgroups of L^WP, when this is not at all the case.

To hammer this home, since making this distinction is crucial on LR:

There are two types of drivers in Metropolis, Aggressive Drivers and Defensive Drivers. In 2010, Metropolis had a reduction of 10000 drivers in the city, but paradoxically, the number of accidents went up! What most helps explain this discrepancy.

Obviously, the answer is that the defensive drivers were the ones eliminated, while the Aggressive drivers (whom I am asserting are more prone to accidents) were the ones remaining, thus increasing the total number of accidents.