Q5 - Home ownership is a sign of

[contropositive]

I got this question correct but E seemed really tempting to me.

The paradox that has to be addressed: given that home ownership is a sign of economic prosperity, why is it that home ownership across countries corresponds with high levels of unemployment.

I thought well maybe because those who own homes are already financially secured so they don't need to work anymore.

This is why I struggled for 2 minutes (i wanted to shoot myself afterwards ) on this question because I was debating A and E. I finally chose A because E did not cover unemployment and seemed like I would be making a huge assumption to make it work. Is that right or is there another reason E is wrong?

[maryadkins]

Yes, your thinking is correct here!

(A) explains the paradox because if owning a home makes it hard to move to a place where there are jobs, that explains why people who own homes have higher unemployment.

(E) doesn't bring up employment at all. To jump from "feeling economically secure" to "do not need a job" is a huge leap.

As for the others:

(B) would make it even weirder that homeowners don't have jobs.

(C) and (D), too, worsen the paradox.

[josephine77777]

I think I understand why E fails the relevance test. Still I find E tempting because I think the paradox in the stimulus is between "economic prosperity" and "high levels of unemployment" rather than between "high levels of home ownership" and the employment issue. Because otherwise the first sentence in the stimulus will seem useless. Furthermore, I think "high levels of home ownership" and "high levels of unemployment" can't form a paradox without the premise presented in the first sentence--- what's wrong with all the people having houses while a lot of people don't work? E addresses the paradox better than A in this sense.

Any help will be greatly appreciated

[crocca]

I answered E for this question, but now I understand why A is correct.

A relates to both of the relationships in the premise - home ownership & economic prosperity vs. home ownership & high levels of unemployment. The first one is addressed by A because "jobs are more plentiful" shows that there is economic prosperity going on in this land of home ownership, and the latter is addressed because these home owners do exist in this land of "plentiful jobs" and economic properity, but they are just far away from the jobs, resulting in their unemployment.

E does address one of the relationships in the premise (home ownership & economic prosperity), but does not address the second issue of unemployment and would require the logical leap that the people who bought the homes are now unemployed.

Takeaway: When looking for an answer to resolve a discrepancy (especially down to 2 choices), choose the answer that explains both parts of the discrepancy (if there are two parts) and requires no (or a smaller, in some cases) logical leap.

[phantepeng]

Dear LSAT experts and learners, I picked C) instead of A). Could you offer a more specific explanation? Thank you and have a nice day!

[snoopy]

Dear LSAT experts and learners, I picked C) instead of A). Could you offer a more specific explanation? Thank you and have a nice day!

The onclusion is that home ownership is a sign of economic prosperity. C says high levels of home ownership and high unemployment hold across countries with widely different social systems. If high home ownership is associated with high unemployment across different countries, that hurts the conclusion because it shows that home ownership is not a sign of economic prosperity. So, C does not explain the paradox at all.

[ReginaP412]

Hi! Still not quite sure how A addresses the part of the paradox regarding 'home ownership is an economic prosperity'

Part 1 of the paradox - home ownership is an economic prosperity
Part 2 of the paradox - High levels of home ownership across the region sees high unemployment levels

Owning a home makes it harder to get up and move to a place where unemployment is not high so that's why they stick around... Part 2 is resolved.

How does that statement address part 1 of the paradox?

Thanks in advance!

[Misti Duvall]

Hi! Still not quite sure how A addresses the part of the paradox regarding 'home ownership is an economic prosperity'

Part 1 of the paradox - home ownership is an economic prosperity
Part 2 of the paradox - High levels of home ownership across the region sees high unemployment levels

Owning a home makes it harder to get up and move to a place where unemployment is not high so that's why they stick around... Part 2 is resolved.

How does that statement address part 1 of the paradox?

Thanks in advance!

Happy to clarify! I like to think of these questions in this way: what's weird about the information we're given? What's weird here is a sign of economic prosperity (home ownership) corresponding with high unemployment in many regions. (A) addresses that because it gives a reason to explain the weirdness. If home owners have a harder time moving, that could explain why home ownership and high unemployment overlap in some places.

Separating the paradox into two parts can make it a little trickier, I think, because it's then harder to focus on how to reconcile what's strange about the overlap between them. Also, be sure you're not reading your own assumptions into the information given. We don't know how expensive the homes are, whether other housing options are available, etc. We don't have to explain how people bought homes, just the regional overlap between home ownership and high unemployment.