PrepTest 130, Section 1, Question 17
A survey taken ten years ago of residents(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(18 more words not shown)
- AResidents of area(22 more words not shown)
- BBetween the times(16 more words not shown)
- COptimal living conditions(17 more words not shown)
- DLiving conditions in(16 more words not shown)
- ETen years ago(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Below average doesn't necessarily mean bad. If living conditions in a country are excellent, people slightly below that average could still have plenty to be satisfied with.
The surprising change is that area L is now at the national average, yet its residents are dissatisfied. Has L necessarily improved? What if the national average fell? A place could move closer to a falling average while becoming worse off itself.
To separate position from conditions, imagine being the richest person in one place on $100,000 a year, or an average earner elsewhere on $200,000. The better relative position doesn't automatically give you the better absolute circumstances.
What we’re looking for
For the question asking us to resolve the survey results, my first possibility is a national decline. Another possibility is changing expectations: people could become better off but want even more. Either way, we need something that explains why satisfaction changed, rather than just describing what the residents value.
Working the answers
- A
L's residents could value walkability or inexpensive groceries differently from their neighbors. But A doesn't say those valued conditions changed between surveys. A continuing difference in priorities doesn't explain why the same area's residents became dissatisfied.
- BCorrect
The national average substantially declined. That addresses the changing benchmark: being near today's average could be worse than being slightly below the old, higher average. At first this may seem to tell us only about the country rather than L, but we already know where L stood relative to the average at both times. Together, the facts give a plausible account of worsening conditions in L and therefore of the residents' changed satisfaction.
- C
The method for defining optimal conditions doesn't tell us what changed in L or in its residents' experience. It supplies background about the survey without explaining the shift from satisfaction to dissatisfaction.
- D
This describes something that may be needed for conditions to improve: residents must perceive a problem. It doesn't show that conditions did improve or explain why residents are dissatisfied now. A condition for future improvement isn't an account of the survey change.
- E
This could help explain why residents weren't bothered by being below average ten years ago. It says nothing about their present awareness or why they became unhappy after reaching the average. Explaining only the earlier satisfaction leaves the change unresolved.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.