#19 - In the decade from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s

[Steve Stein]

Hey Kristin,

Thanks for your response—let me add a couple of points of clarification:

Let's presume that a society will become insecure when it first learns of downsizing.

If they learned of the downsizing as it happened, we would expect a drop in the level of security at that point, and we might expect different results from before and after the firings (from '84 to '94).

Paradox: we didn't see the expected drop in security levels among employees.

Solution: They learned of it before it happened. (let's say 1980)

Thus, they were already insecure when the first survey came out, and continue to be so, so little change.

Please let me know whether this is clear—thanks!

~Steve

[kristinaroz93]

okay I figured out my confusion. In one instance I am thinking about people's insecurity before and during the turmoil as whole (i.e. the entire decade) as being the anaomoly since it was constant going into turmoil as it was before the turmoil started (when we would think that upon hearing the news that everyone's insecurity would right away fall) and in the other instance I am thinking that the anaomoly is that the insecurity hadn't progressed to something greater over the period of the decade. So my question is which anaomoly is it that we are resolving?

[Steve Stein]

Hey Kristin,

Within the logic of this stimulus, think of it like a simple on-off switch; once these people saw the firings, they became insecure. If that switch had been flipped in '85, the survey results might have shown a drop.

Instead, the switch go flipped well beforehand, in '80 for example—so the population had already become insecure by the time they took the first survey in '84, and that seems to be the way they stayed.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know.

~Thanks!

[kristinaroz93]

yep i get it and it was what I had thought from the start (I never thought the progression was the anomoly personally)! It was a period as a whole that was the anaomloly and why things stayed the same before and during turmoil. =)

Thanks!

It makes sense now hallelujah.

Thanks for bearing with me , seriously =)

[ashpine17]

When it says pick an answer they contributed to solving the paradox does that mean it has to or does it only mean contribute as in provide a possible but not necessarily definite explanation? I picked E on blind reviews because I didn’t think optimism necessarily translated to feeling more secure about your own job?! Can someone evaluate what I’ve written? I was down between b and e and didn’t like either of them

[ashpine17]

And the percentage of people feeling secure was lower in the 90’s as well so I thought it contradicted e when it said they were more optimistic in the 90’s?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Ash,

We are looking for the answer choice that does not help resolve the paradox. All of the other answer choices WILL help resolve the paradox. For these, you want to know the exact paradox going in. Here, the paradox is that the percentage of people who thought their jobs were very secure was approximately the same in 1984 and 1994, despite the fact that there was significant disruption to the job market during that time. One would expect that a disrupted job market would lead more workers to feel job uncertainty. But it looks as though that isn't borne out by the data. A possible explanation, even if it isn't necessarily the only possible explanation, would help to resolve the paradox.

For answer choice (E), this provides some explanation---people were just so gosh darn positive in the 90s, that the baseline security and happiness level. It explains how the security levels were the same in the 80s and less secure 90s. Answer choice (B) however is talking about a different paradox. It relates to the feelings about OTHER people's job security. Even if answer choice (B) is true, that those who feel their own job is secure are more likely to think the jobs of others are secure, it doesn't explain why anyone thought their OWN job was secure in the 90s. It doesn't explain our paradox, so it's the right answer.

Regarding the difference in poll numbers between the 80s and the 90s, yes the numbers were slightly lower in the 90s, but that's actually consistent with the claim made in the passage. It says that the number "hardly changed." That is absolutely consistent with the small variation seen in the poll numbers.

Hope that helps!

[ashpine17]

how is it an acceptable stretch to say feeling positive equals feeling more secure about your job though? (E) i feel like for lsat we're told not to make these leaps but then on these sorts of questions these leaps are accepted and then rationalized post hoc and I don't get how it's ok here??

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ashpine,

Just to be clear, the exact word used in Answer E is "optimistic" rather than "positive." While "optimistic" does convey a positive feeling, the specific definition is "hopeful and confident about the future." If people were more hopeful and confident about their futures in general, it could help explain why they weren't as worried about their own job security despite the difficult economic times.

For Resolve the Paradox questions, any answer that helps explain the paradox does help to resolve it (which usually would be the correct answer, but in this EXCEPT question, is one of the four wrong answers.)

You're correct that for other question types this difference in terms could be a major problem with the answer.