Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 1 · Question 20

Incorrect. Since this family sold a dramatically increased amount of wool on the international market leading to their increased income, the prices of goods measured against the cost of wool domestically doesn't resolve the discrepancy. If this answer measured the prices of wool internationally against domestic costs of all goods, then it might be correct.

Incorrect. The stimulus establishes that the income made by this family increased in the time period, so even if domestic wool prices crashed, it's already been established that international sales for this family more than made up for domestic revenue decreasing.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
A sheep farming family sold a higher percent and amount of their wool on the higher-priced international market, thus resulting in more wool income. However, their quality of life didn't increase.

Answer Anticipation:
The paradox here relates to expectations around income and quality of life. When someone makes more money, it's expected that their quality of life will go up. Here, though, that didn't happen. So what can explain that?

Two things spring to mind. First, if your income goes up, but the cost of living goes up more, you're not going to increase your quality of life. Think about getting a $100/mo raise, but then also having your rent go up $150/mo—you're actually worse off. The second is related to a part-to-whole flaw—it's established that the wool income went up, but that doesn't establish that overall income went up. It's possible this family has more than one stream of income (maybe they also sell meat), and if those incomes decreased more than wool increased, their quality of life wouldn't be expected to increase.

Answer Explanation:
If the family made more money from wool sales, but the rest of their products saw a decrease in income, then that could explain why they didn't see an increase in prosperity.

Key Takeaway:
Common flaws show up in every question type, so don't stop looking for them just because you're not in a question with an argument! Here, one of the two main issues leading to the paradox was the author's part-to-whole flaw, ignoring that an increase in wool income might not mean an increase in overall income.

Incorrect. It's still true that this family made more money selling wool than they had previously, so even if the overall market for Australian wool was weaker, this family managed to buck that trend and make money.

Incorrect. Either this answer includes the family in question, or it doesn't. If it does, then it makes the paradox worse, as their wool income increasing (representing 100% of their income) is higher. If it doesn't include them, then this provides no new information to resolve the paradox. Either way, it's wrong.