Q3 - Qualifying for assistance

[nandy_millette]

I chose E but it don't fully understand why?

So to me the stimulus is saying:

number of people receiving food aid increased while the number of person qualified to receive SUCH aid remained unchanged.

So I am thinking the paradox is:
In order to receive aid you must qualify for aid so how is it that more people receive aid than the number of people who qualified for it?

So I tried to paraphrase some scenarios in my head e.g. corruption, aid is disbursed by household so number of household remained unchanged while number of people in household increased???

Is is okay to try and paraphrase answers for paradox questions? Also am I wrong for assuming that SUCH aid in the stimulus is referring to food aid and not aid in general?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, "such" assistance refers back to "municipal food assistance".
and
Even though I love pre-phrasing in LR, I would generally NOT suggest pre-phrasing answers to Paradox questions (sometimes it's irresistible, but I find the real answer is too often a surprising way of resolving the paradox, so it's a little dangerous to become to focused on YOUR anticipated answer. It can hamper your ability to think flexibly enough to understand the actual answer).

== Complete explanation ==
Explain a Result (Paradox)

How is it that:
# of ppl who RECEIVED food assistance doubled in 1991
even though
# of ppl who QUALIFIED for it remained the same ?

(A) This explains why QUALIFIED stayed the same but doesn't explain why RECEIVED doubled.

(B) This doesn't give us any way to explain why RECEIVED doubled unless we cheat the paradox and assume that the estimate of who QUALIFIES also doubled.

(C) This sounds like a lot more people would QUALIFY for aid, but that goes against the paradox.

(D) This reinforces that QUALIFIED remained the same, but doesn't explain why RECEIVED doubled.

(E) This is suggesting that during 1991, a bunch of poor people who qualified for aid (but had no idea that they did) actually FOUND OUT that they qualified for aid, presumably leading them to apply for and eventually RECEIVE aid.

Essentially, it's like saying "in 1990, 10000 ppl qualified for aid, but only 4000 ppl received aid, because most of the 10000 ppl didn't REALIZE that they qualified for aid. Due to increased awareness in 1991, many more of those same 10000 ppl found out that they qualified for aid so now 8000 ppl are receiving aid."

This is related to a tried-and-true LSAT pattern: a statistic goes up not because there are actually more people who qualify for it, but because there is more awareness or better tracking of the statistic.

For instance, "In Bayburg, the # of reported pet raccoons tripled last year. Clearly, more Bayburgians are falling in love with this nocturnal rodent."

LSAT would frequently weaken this argument by suggesting that the same number of ppl in Bayburg owned raccoons last year as they do this year; the only difference is that more people are willing/able to REPORT that they own a raccoon.

Let me know if you have any questions about this.

[nandy_millette]

This is related to a tried-and-true LSAT pattern: a statistic goes up not because there are actually more people who qualify for it, but because there is more awareness or better tracking of the statistic.

For instance, "In Bayburg, the # of reported pet raccoons tripled last year. Clearly, more Bayburgians are falling in love with this nocturnal rodent."

LSAT would frequently weaken this argument by suggesting that the same number of ppl in Bayburg owned raccoons last year as they do this year; the only difference is that more people are willing/able to REPORT that they own a raccoon.

Wow thank you so much for this insight, I came across questions like this before and always seem to get them wrong because I never fully understand the flaw. Thank you