Adjusted for inflation

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope18% picked this

   At the end of the 1800s, prices in general in Australia rose more rapidly than did the wholesale

   Out of Scope: end of the 1800s The period from 1840-1860 would not be described as the end of the 1800s, so it seems like this answer is just completely out of scope. Had this been the right time period, it's still not that useful. This family was selling its wool more internationally, so what's going on with domestic wool prices is pretty irrelevant.

   18%
2. B

   No Impact11% picked this

   The prices of wool sold to domestic markets by Australian sheep farmers decreased dramatically during

   It's an established fact that this family made more money from wool sales, and we know that they were selling way more wool internationally than domestically. So the falling price of domestic wool is not super impactful (since this family's fortunes were tied increasingly to the international wool market), and it can't possibly explain a financial loss, since we already know that the family had a financial gain from wool sales.

   11%
3. C

   Correct45% picked this

   The international and domestic prices for mutton, sheepskins, and certain other products produced by all Australian sheep farmers fell sharply

   Why this is right

   The lovable part of this answer is its strong language (which we want on Paradox, Strengthen, and Weaken): stuff produced by all sheep farmers fell sharply during this period. What makes this answer hard to interpret at first is that we have to realize that "a family of sheep farmers" doesn't necessarily just sell wool as its source of income. Wool is the sheep's fur, which can be sold (and it grows back). But you can also eventually slaughter your sheep and sell its meat (mutton) and its skin (sheepskins). So if you're a family of sheep farmers, you sell a few "products": sheep's wool, sheep's meat, sheep's skin, and possibly other products. All sheep farmers sell this gamut of products, according to this answer choice If sales of wool went up, but sales of all the other sheep products fell sharply, then we have a way to make sense of how this family could make way more money from wool sales while still not having a big uptick in prosperity.

   Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   45%
4. D

   No Impact (Tries to Cheat Paradox)21% picked this

   Competition in wool sales increased during the period in question, leaving Australian wool producers in a less

   In order for this answer to help us explain the lack of increase in prosperity, we'd have to interpret it to mean that "higher competition in wool sales led to worse sales for the family of sheep farmers, which is why they didn't have an increase in prosperity". But we can't draw that sort of story out of this answer because the background facts already established that this family earned a lot more money from wool sales than before. In a sense, any answer about wool sales is doomed, because that part of the paradox is already locked in as a financial gain.

   21%
5. E

   No Impact6% picked this

   Among Australian sheep farmers, the percentage who made their living exclusively from international wool sales increased significantly during

   I can't see any way we would take this demographic fact about sheep farmers (a higher proportion of them made all their money from international wool sales) and turn it into a reason that this family is not seeing an uptick in prosperity. We don't have any way of knowing whether they make their money exclusively from the international wool market, and even if they did, we've heard that the international market is booming, so that wouldn't be an effective mechanism for explaining a lack of prosperity.

   6%