A nice and small paradox question. It may require a second read through the passage but it shouldn't pose too much of a problem to understand. What we have is a situation where employment in the LOGGING AND WOOD PROCESSING...TIMBER INDUSTRY decreased but AMOUNT OF WOOD taken INCREASED by 10 percent. When I read this the first time round, I think I was looking for something to do with automation making it possible to cut more trees.
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. Paradoxically, this loss of jobs occurred even as the amount of wood taken from the forests of Ravonia increased by 10 percent.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent paradox?
(A) Not since the 1950s has the timber industry been Ravonia’s most important industry economically.
Irrelevant. Even if it were important or not important this doesn't resolve the paradox.
(B) Between 1977 and 1987, the total number of acres of timberland in Ravonia fell, while the demand for wood products increased.
I didn't give this much credence, but this answer choice probably tempts test-takers into the Fantasy Story mode of really going too far in trying to make this work as a way to resolve the paradox. I could come up with a story to make this the answer but you should yellow flag this and move on to look for something better.
(C) Since 1977, a growing proportion of the timber that has been cut in Ravonia has been exported as raw, unprocessed wood.
Nice. A clear explanation of how Wood Processing unemployment could fall, but raw timber production as been growing.
(D) Since 1977, domestic sales of wood and wood products have increased by more than export sales have increased.
This doesn't resolve anything. It doesn't even bring into the debate anything about employment.
(E) In 1977, overall unemployment in Ravonia was approximately 10 percent; in 1987, Ravonia’s unemployment rate was 15 percent.
Like (D) this doesn't bring into the debate one of the two factors at play. Suppose all this about employment is true. What does it have to do with wood production?
Some Kudos would be nice!
_________________
www.gmatknight.com | Online GMAT Tutoring - Verbal 99% V48 - Q50 [Section Bests] -
reviews - quick tip: there's a free auto-booking feature on the site for a 15-min consult :)