#17 - A survey taken ten years ago of residents of area L

[Adam Tyson]

We sometimes talk about "active resolution" - the correct answer has to actively resolve the paradox, as opposed to just allowing the paradox to exist (usually). Look for an answer that is a little more concrete, more aggressive, in bringing the two apparently conflicting ideas into harmony with one another.

This will be covered later in the course, briefly, because there aren't usually very many of them on the test (and sometimes none). That's a shame - they are usually fun and relatively easy.

I hope your course is going well, and I'm glad to see you are using your available resources here! Good luck!

[anahi78]

I understand how "B" is the right choice, but "A" seems like a good answer as well. If residents of area L value aspects of living conditions that neighboring areas, then their preference may not need to correlate with the country's average? Anahi

[Ron Gore]

Hi Anahi!

I understand your question to be that answer choice (A) seems attractive, even though you know it is wrong, because you feel it provides information that could resolve the apparent discrepancy, i.e., the standard of living in area L is now same as the national average, rather than below average, while the residents of area L now report general dissatisfaction with their living conditions, rather than general satisfaction.

The problem with answer choice (A) is it compares which aspects of living conditions are valued by residents of area L with those valued by residents of adjacent areas. The evidence in the stimulus talked about the "country's" average living conditions. So, specifically identifying adjacent areas doesn't have any real connection to the evidence: maybe the residents of adjacent areas value various aspects of living conditions atypically, while the residents of area L are in conformance with the majority view of the nation.

But even more importantly, knowing that the residents of area L value different aspects of living conditions than even the nation as a whole would not help resolve the paradox, because we don't have sufficient detail to apply that information. What are the differences, and how would they impact satisfaction? The information in answer choice (A), if we say that it connects sufficiently with the paradox, could just as easily lead to increased satisfaction as to dissatisfaction.

Please let me know if this helps.

Thanks,

Ron

[Basia W]

Hello,

I had a hard time understanding why B turned out to be the correct answer: How can it be that the second time the survey was conducted their living conditions had declined when they were about national average, whereas before they were even worse?

thank you for your explanation,

Best,

Basia

[David Boyle]

Hello,

I had a hard time understanding why B turned out to be the correct answer: How can it be that the second time the survey was conducted their living conditions had declined when they were about national average, whereas before they were even worse?

thank you for your explanation,

Best,

Basia

Hello Basia W,

B is correct because, ironically, even though area L's living standard "improved" to be at the national average, the national average itself went down a lot.
One numerical example:

Ten years ago, satisfaction rating out of 100:
Area L: 59
Country of area L as a whole: 60

Present satisfaction rating out of 100:
Area L: 10
Country of area L as a whole: 10

I think the numbers above help resolve any problem.

Hope this helps,
David

[Iam181]

I marked off answer choice B because of the phrase "Between the times that the two surveys were conducted" and selected answer choice C instead.

For answer choice B, phrase, "Between the times that the two surveys were conducted" I thought is a trick because the average could have come back to the ten years ago's survey average at the second survey although there was a decline in between the years, therefore, it sounded like a weak answer choice to me.

Can you also explain why answer C is wrong? Is there a difference between "Optimal living condition" and "Living condition"?

I thought C is a better choice because when it is saying government policies are a factor in determining a living condition then I assumed it is implying that the government changed its policies and had a negative effect on the country L and therefore it is feeling the dissatisfaction.

What do you think about my train of thought?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Iam181,

Would answer choice B be a more airtight answer if it had read, "Between the times that the two surveys were conducted, the average living conditions in L’s country had substantially declined and not rebounded?" Yes, certainly. But, as the answer choice is worded, we also have no basis for assuming there was a subsequent rebound of living conditions. Thus, answer choice B resolves the paradox as it stands, so long as we don't import an additional assumption into it (the assumption that living conditions rebounded). Try not to read additional (superfluous) assumptions into any Resolve answer choice. Rather, simply evaluate the effect of the answer choice as it's stated.

On answer choice C, there is a difference between "optimal" (i.e. the best) living conditions, and living conditions more generally (or average living conditions). Since the stimulus is not discussing "optimal" living conditions (or any possible change in optimal living conditions), answer choice C is not relevant. There is another potential problem with answer choice C, centered on an assumption you've made. Nothing in answer choice C states that the way the terms in the survey are established/defined is having any impact on causing government policies to change (or stay the same). So, you're reading into answer choice C a change that we have no way of knowing occurred. Without knowing if that change occurred (and without knowing if the changes had a negative impact), we can't determine the effect of answer choice C.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy