Q14 - Between 1977 and 1987, the country

[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).

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

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question! You're right, this one is a real doozy.

As you said, we're asked to resolve this paradox: even though Ravonia lost 12,000 jobs in logging and wood processing (about 15% of its timber industry), in the same 10-year period the total amount of wood taken from its forests actually increased.

(C) is the correct answer. If a growing proportion of Ravonia's timber has been exported as raw, unprocessed wood, then it would make sense for a large number of wood processors to lose their jobs, even as the total amount of wood taken from the forests increases.

I know this answer is bugging you, but you actually hinted at why it works in your own post:

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.

Almost! Does the stimulus specifically say that jobs in logging were lost? No! It says that Ravonia lost jobs "in logging and wood processing." That could mean 12,000 jobs lost in processing and zero lost in logging!

Think of it this way. In the 2010 World Cup, Spain got fewer goals from Fernando Torres and David Villa than in 2006. Does that mean both men scored fewer goals? No! Actually, Villa scored two more in 2010, but Torres scored three fewer.


(A) is wildly out of scope. Not since the 1950s? Ravonia's most important industry? How does that connect to the paradox?

(B) is tempting, but it doesn't explain why jobs would be lost even as more wood is taken from the forest.

(D) is out of scope. We don't care about the relative increases in domestic sales vs. exports.

(E) is also out of scope. We're concerned specifically with the decrease in jobs in the timber industry, not with Ravonia's overall rate of unemployment.


Does that clear things up for you? Please let me know if this question is still driving you up the wall.

[gotomedschool]

I totally understand the correct answer choice after reading it more closely but I still have qualms over why answer choice B is incorrect and a little issue with C that maybe you could explain if you have time.


B states that the total number of acres of timberland in Ravonia fell, while the demand for wood products increased.

Well if there is less acreage of timberland, can't that equate to less room for wood processing jobs. Analogously consider this, say a farmer employs 100 workers on his 50 acre farm then for whatever reason his 50 acre farm turns into a 20 acre farm, because of the decrease in total acreage, the demand for work would be lessened, hence the job loss.

And to resolve the other side of the paradox, even though the total number of acres of timberland fell, demand increases. Well if the demand for lumber is increasing over a finite amount of timber, it still plausible that the amount of wood taken increases by 10%. Because despite less acreage of timberland available, if people want that wood THAT badly, maybe they are deforesting and just destroying the remaining acreage of forest, taking as many trees as their demand requires of them.

I know that might sound like a far stretch but to me it justified the paradox.

I can also understand (C) though. Growing proportion of wood as raw/unprocessed means less demand for wood processing jobs--->15% decrease in unemployment. As for the amount of wood increasing by 10%, this answer choice doesn't in my opinion directly address the increased amount of wood. I guess its just assumed that the growing proportion of timber being exported has led to an overall increase in the amount harvested. Although in my opinion, I think the assumption here is that the increasing proportion of exports for a particular raw product has led to the increased demand for the product but that's not explicit in the text.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

With these "resolve the paradox" questions, our job isn't necessarily to explain both events. Our job is to figure out, hey, what's the unexpected thing happening here, and then to choose an answer that gives an explanation for it.

In this case, what's weird is that even as Ravonia was taking more wood out of the forest, there was a big decrease in employment in the timber industry.

(C) resolves the paradox because it explains the unexpected event; it explains the job losses. Now the whole thing makes sense.

(B) is no good because you're making an enormous assumption to justify it: why would employment depend on total acreage? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to depend on the amount of work being done?

To take your farm example: if the farm shrinks, but we're harvesting more veggies, and milking more cows, then we're going to have to hire more people, not fewer! The area of the farm doesn't tell us anything, in and of itself, about employment.

Similarly in this case, (B) doesn't resolve the paradox. Okay, the acres of timberland fell, but we're still taking more wood out of them, so why would it be the case that people are losing their jobs?

Does that clear this up for you?

[goriano]

With these "resolve the paradox" questions, our job isn't necessarily to explain both events. Our job is to figure out, hey, what's the unexpected thing happening here, and then to choose an answer that gives an explanation for it.

Could you please clarify this point? I've been reading other threads on the forum regarding resolve the paradox questions and I've been told that the correct answer choice should explain BOTH events.

[giladedelman]

Yes yes yes yes yes great question. I did not phrase my above post well.

These questions typically give us two events or facts, A and B, that don't seem to make sense together. It's always, "Hey, given A, it's weird that B happened," or vice versa. The point I was trying to make above is that it's not our job to explain, "This is why A happened, and this is why B happened." Rather, our job is to pick an answer that explains, "This is why it is possible to have both A and B."

So you're right that we are concerned with both halves of the paradox. The right answer needs to explain how the weird result can occur given the other information.

Does that answer your question? Let me know. It's an important point.