The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
LSAT Challenge - Explain why the wrong choices are wrong
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:07 PM Author: lascivious disturbing halford party of the first part Adjusted for inflation, the income earned from wool sales by a certain family of Australian sheep farmers grew substantially during the period from 1840 to 1860. This is because the price for wool sold on the international market was higher than the price paid on domestic markets and the percentage and amount of its wool that this family sold internationally increased dramatically during that period. But even though the family generated more income from selling their wool, they failed to enjoy a commensurate increase in prosperity. Which one of the following would, if true, help most to resolve the apparent paradox described above? (A) At the end of the 1800s, prices in general in Australia rose more rapidly than did the wholesale price of wool sold domestically. (B) The prices of wool sold to domestic markets by Australian sheep farmers decreased dramatically during the period in question. (C) The international and domestic prices for mutton, sheepskins, and certain other products produced by all Australian sheep farmers fell sharply during the period in question. (D) Competition in wool sales increased during the period in question, leaving Australian wool producers in a less favorable position than previously. (E) Among Australian sheep farmers, the percentage who made their living exclusively from international wool sales increased significantly during the period in question. |
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:16 PM Author: Vibrant elastic band meetinghouse i think C is correct The conditions in A could explain this, but the time period in the answer refers to the "end of the 1800s" while the time period in the passage refers to the time period between 1840 and 1860 B is wrong because the passage states that the income earned from selling wool has increased substantially, meaning that international sales have more than offset the losses in domestic sales D is wrong because the passage states that the income earned from selling wool has increased - even if the market is more competitive, they are still making more money. in E, the passage refers to a "certain family"
i might be wrong though |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:20 PM Author: Brass submissive kitty temple E (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3593026&forum_id=2#33141363) |
 |
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:23 PM Author: Vibrant elastic band meetinghouse i don't think it's E, C is much more specific "(C)
The international and domestic prices for mutton,
sheepskins, and certain other products produced by
///ALL/// Australian sheep farmers fell sharply during the
period in question. "
"(E)
Among Australian sheep farmers, ///THE PERCENTAGE///
who made their living exclusively from international
wool sales increased significantly during the period
in question." C seems to specify that every Australian sheep farmer took a big hit, while E suggests that it's somewhat likely that the family took a hit |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:25 PM Author: Brass submissive kitty temple "Adjusted for inflation, the income earned from wool sales by a certain family of Australian sheep farmers grew
substantially" |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:28 PM Author: Vibrant elastic band meetinghouse right, but C says that the family, which is included in the group "all Australian Sheep Farmers", took a big hit in revenue for sure due to decreases in revenue in non-wool sheep products E says that the percentage of sheep farmers who now only sell wool has increased, but does not necessarily include the family in question, while C does |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:29 PM Author: mildly autistic haunting macaca location Wool sales does not encompass the entire revenue stream of sheep farmers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3593026&forum_id=2#33141427) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:24 PM Author: mildly autistic haunting macaca location No. The standard of living does not just include sheep farmers, and those that made their living exclusively from international sales is irrelevant, it is simply describing what was likely to happen if international prices increased. Just because it is logical does not mean it answers the question of why this certain family did not enjoy a higher standard of living. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3593026&forum_id=2#33141389) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:32 PM Author: impressive ivory sweet tailpipe hospital LSAT authors are non-zero sum thinkers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3593026&forum_id=2#33141437) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:35 PM Author: deep main people C is the answer. The question assumes that adjusted for inflation, income from wool sales increased. So it doesnt matter if A, B or D are true, the facts in the question already assume that these factors haven't affected the family in question. E is also irrelevant. However, if C is true, and if a substantial portion of income for sheep farmers is from non-wool products, it explains the so-called paradox (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3593026&forum_id=2#33141457) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:40 PM Author: 180 yapping heaven skinny woman Agree completely and the only thing I can say after reading this thread is "(xo2017)" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3593026&forum_id=2#33141487) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2017 12:45 PM Author: Greedy death wish property clearly c (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3593026&forum_id=2#33141517) |