Q17 - When a community opens a large

[peg_city]

How does D at all resolve the discrepancy?

We are trying to resolve the discrepancy between why there is a difference between the economic activity in the community vs. outside of the mall. D does not do this . All it basically shows is that if the mall had not been built, then the boost the local economy would have been more than it is with the mall built.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

We're trying to reconcile the following two claims:

1. there's an expected large amount of economic activity when you put in a new mall
2. the increase in the local economy is much smaller than the total amount of economic activity that goes on the mall

So the question is, "why is opening a new mall not produce an increase in the economy by the full amount of economic activity that goes on in the mall?"

The answer is simply that much of the economic activity that goes on in a mall would have gone on anyway, it's just that now it's found a home. Best expressed in answer choice (C). Those businesses were either already located in the area or were about to open up shop locally anyway.

If that's the case, if the money was going to be spent there anyway, then you can't add that to the total increase in economic activity for the area.

Does that answer your question?

[lhermary]

We're trying to reconcile the following two claims:

1. there's an expected large amount of economic activity when you put in a new mall
2. the increase in the local economy is much smaller than the total amount of economic activity that goes on the mall

So the question is, "why is opening a new mall not produce an increase in the economy by the full amount of economic activity that goes on in the mall?"

The answer is simply that much of the economic activity that goes on in a mall would have gone on anyway, it's just that now it's found a home. Best expressed in answer choice (C). Those businesses were either already located in the area or were about to open up shop locally anyway.

If that's the case, if the money was going to be spent there anyway, then you can't add that to the total increase in economic activity for the area.

Does that answer your question?

It doesn't. In my text book the answer is D (I checked again) and I don't think C, the way you expressed it, represents what it says in the book.

C)Most of the jobs created by large shopping malls are filled by people who recently moved to the community and who would not have moved had there been no job offer in the community

How does this answer explain the discrepancy?

D) Most of the money spent in a large shopping mall is money that would have been spent elsewhere in the same community had that mall not been built

Is the right answer in the text book, but doesn't make any sense...

[Shiggins]

I am having trouble with how choice B is wrong.

[goriano]

I am having trouble with how choice B is wrong.

I got this question wrong and need help deciding between (B) and (D). I'd also like confirmation of my reasoning in eliminating the other answer choices.

(A): Novelty wearing off? Irrelevant. Does not address why the large amount of economic activity inside the mall PRIOR to its novelty wearing off didn't have a mirror effect on the local economy. Eliminate.

(C): People who recently moved? They BECOME part of the local economy and so only serves to widen the discrepancy. Eliminate.

(E): Talks about the CONSTRUCTION of the mall, but we're interested in the economic activity going inside the mall. Irrelevant. Eliminate.

(B): Talks about tourists. Is it reasonable to assume they are just fleeting travelers and external to the local economy? This seems reasonable and could explain the discrepancy.

(D): If the same amount of money spent @ the mall would've been spent elsewhere, I'm still left wondering WHY there is a discrepancy between this increase in the money spent (irrespective of whether it occurs @ the mall or elsewhere in the city) and the lack of a mirror increase in the local economy.

[mrsam723]

All (B) and (C) tell us is that the economy of the community is getting a boost as a result of money spent and jobs taken by community outsiders. These facts, at best, substantiate the claim that when a mall opens, there's a boost to the local economy.

What they do not do is explain how the total amount of the mall's "economic activity" is greater than the "increase of the local economy". In fact, we could still see the phenomenon if the tourists and job seekers decided to stay home. The issue isn't how the community is getting the money, it's where it's being spent.

That's (D).

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So what is the discrepancy we're trying to explain? Apparently, when a new shopping mall is opened in a community, there is not the expected boost to the economy even though a large amount of economic activity occurs inside the mall once it is opened.

Why could that be? Well, if a lot of the business that was happening outside the mall moved into the mall once it opened, that could explain why there is such economic activity in the mall without providing a boost to the local economy. The economic activity is simply being transfered from one place to another within the local economy. Answer choice (D) provides such an explanation.

Incorrect Answers

(A) would explain a discrepancy between short term and long term economic activity, but would not explain expected gains to the local economy vs actual gains to the local economy.
(B) would explain why we would expect a boost to the local economy, but makes things all the more puzzling why the actual boost was so much smaller than expected.
(C) would suggest that we would expect to see a boost to the local economy. This answer choice fails to explain why the expected boost failed to materialize.
(E) is similar to answer choice (A) in that it would explain a discrepancy between short term and long term economic activity, but does not explain the difference between expected and actual economic activity.

Hope that helps!

[LeeJ891]

This is a poorly written question. I think it's very easy to interpret the discrepancy we're trying to resolve as "How is it possible there's a lot of new economic activity in the mall (which IS IN the locality) but the locality receives a relatively small economic boost?" And if this is your interpretation, answer choice (D) does not resolve the discrepancy because it just describes a situation where the source of increased economic activity is shifting, but the boost to the local economy should still be the same. It doesn't resolve the issue of, how is there all this new economic activity in the mall but not the locality.

I see now they are trying to say that when a new mall is constructed, we expect a lot of new economic activity in the mall and new economic activity ELSEWHERE in the community. If this was your interpretation, answer choice (D) resolves it very well.

Would love if one of the Atticus Finches could explain why the latter interpretation is the correct one so I don't make this mistake again!!

[Laura Damone]

Hi LeeJ891!

I'm happy to help. Your first stab at the discrepancy was actually spot on. The discrepancy is, as you said "How is it possible there's a lot of new economic activity in the mall (which IS IN the locality) but the locality receives a relatively small economic boost."

In other words, how come the net increase in the local economy is much smaller than the total amount of economic activity that takes place in the mall?

D explains this very well. If most of the money spent at the mall would have been spent elsewhere in the community had the mall not existed, it's not really new economic activity, it's just economic activity that has been relocated to this one specific area. That would explain why the total amount of money spent at the mall is a much greater than the net increase in the local economy.

Make sense?

[LizaK873]

Abbreviated economic activity as EA.

So, for my analysis, I broke the EA into three regions -- [mall EA], [community EA], [local EA]
And defined [new] as follows:
- [new __ EA] means [EA new to the __ ]

Premise then becomes:
- New mall in community -> new local EA
- new mall has large EA [nbsp] [/nbsp] (doesn't say if it's a large part of community EA or local EA)

Identified the most critical underlying assumptions that leads to the answer:
- whether community or local, EA can only increase if there is "new" ones added (10 berries becomes 11 berries -> means at least one new berry)
- [new mall EA] =/= [new community EA] =/= [new local EA]
- [mall EA] == [new mall EA] when [mall is new] // eg. [owners to a home] == [new owners to a home] when [home is new], since home could not have had any previous owners
- mall EA is a subset of community EA, and community EA is a subset of local EA

Now, proving the following becomes easy:
- [new mall in community] -> [new local EA] < [mall EA]

A difference in any of the following works to prove it:
- [new mall EA] vs [new local EA], or
- [new mall EA] vs [new community EA], or
- [new community EA] vs [new local EA]
- one is not a subset of the other

As in, the first three are the most likely that make it possible for [new local EA] < [mall EA], unless I mean, you could also attack the subset implication, but we reaaaally shouldn't need to

---
So, any of these can strengthen (aka be the answer):
- [new mall EA] consists of both [new community EA] and [old community EA]
- [new mall EA] consists of both [new local EA] and [old local EA]
- [new community EA] consists of both [new local EA] and [old local EA]
- or farfetched, [mall EA] is not a subset of [community/local EA], or [community EA] is not a subset of [local EA]

Which means, if one of the answers contains [old community EA] or [old local EA], it strengthens, hence correct

So, soln/D is rephrased as:
Most of [mall's EA] is not [new community EA] --> [mall EA] has [old community EA] --> [new community EA] is less than [mall EA] -> strengthens possibility for [new local EA] to be less than [mall EA]


A) implies nothing between the three EAs -> irrelevant
B) implies [mall EA] has [new local EA] (tourists) and [new community EA] (wouldn't have visited community) -> weaken
C) implies [mall EA] has [new community EA] -> weaken
D) implies [mall EA] has [old community EA] -> strengthen
E) implies nothing between the three EAs -> irrelevant