Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S1 · Q20 Adjusted for inflation

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

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.

Background

1840-1860 - the price for wool on the world market was higher than the price paid in domestic markets - this family sold more wool on the world market - this family made a lot more money from wool sales

Surprising Claim

During this period, the family didn't see much, if any, increase in prosperity.

Evaluate

Hmm, tricky one. A lot of background details to carefully absorb.

Given That The family made much more money from wool sales How Can We Explain The family didn't see much of any increase in prosperity?

We don't try to predict specific answers on Paradox, since the correct answer often takes a very surprising angle. However, we can think through some general types of ways that a family could make much more money on wool but not see an increase in prosperity:

- maybe money isn't worth as much as it used to be? Inflation could mean that even though you make more money, your spending power (and thus prosperity) hasn't gone up. Wait a sec, the first sentence says "Adjusted for inflation", so we can't actually explain it that way.

- maybe they faced financial difficulties of some sort? We could make more money from our business but have to spend more money on parking tickets / medical bills / funerals for family members, etc.

Goal

Look for an answer that gives us a way to explain their lack of prosperity.

20.

Which one of the following would, if true, help most to resolve the apparent paradox described above?

At the end of the
Out of Scope
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% picked this
The prices of wool sold
No Impact
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.
10% picked this
Correct
The international and domestic prices
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% picked this
Competition in wool sales increased
No Impact (Tries to Cheat Paradox)
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.
20% picked this
Among Australian sheep farmers, the
No Impact
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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free