Self-study
Between 1977 and 1987, the country of Ravonia lost about 12,000 jobs in logging and wood processing, representing a 15 percent decrease in employment in the country’s timber industry. ██████████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ██ ████████
Objective: Resolve the Paradox
The stimulus tells us that during a particular decade, Ravonia lost 15 percent of its logging and wood processing jobs. However, during that same decade, 10 percent more wood was harvested from Ravonia's forests. This is the "paradox" we're meant to resolve: if wood harvesting increased, how did logging and wood processing jobs decrease?
Possibly the most obvious possible solution is if wood harvesting and/or processing became more efficient during that time, for instance due to automation. Of course, that's not the only possible way to resolve this apparent paradox. But it's the type of answer we're looking for. The correct answer will explain why fewer workers were needed, even for a greater volume of wood products. Incorrect answers will be irrelevant, or deepen our confusion.
14.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████
a
Not since the █████ ███ ███ ██████ ████████ ████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ████████ █████████████
How timber compares to other Ravonian industries is not relevant to understanding the "paradox" in the stimulus. The issue we want to resolve is fully internal to the timber industry.
b
Between 1977 and █████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ ██████████
It makes sense that the demand for wood products increased—we know that more wood was harvested in this time period. But that still doesn't explain why fewer workers were needed.
What about the decreased amount of timberland? There are two reasons this also doesn't resolve the paradox. First, (B) doesn't tell us how much the timberland acreage decreased. We don't even know if it was a significant change. Second, we can't assume that less timberland means fewer workers can harvest even more logs. The stimulus is explicit that log harvesting increased. A smaller area of timberland still doesn't mean you can harvest more logs with fewer workers.
c
Since 1977, a ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████████ █████
The jobs we're concerned with are
(C) isn't perfect—it doesn't actually tell us how these two parts of the timber industry compare to each other—but it at least starts to explain the "paradox".
d
Since 1977, domestic █████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████████
The "paradox" in the stimulus is about the opposite trends in timber harvesting jobs versus the amount of wood harvested. Where that wood is ultimately sold doesn't explain why Ravonia is losing timber jobs.
e
In 1977, overall ████████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ████████████ ████ ███ ██ ████████
(E) might be tempting because it points to a broader trend of job loss. But it still doesn't make timber industry job loss any less confusing given the increased wood harvesting in that time. If (E) explained why jobs were being lost—for example, widespread automation—it would be more helpful.