This is the question and it comes from Catan. The first question under discussion was the relative merits of trading goods with severe restrictions at a 2 to 1 ratio, versus with fewer restrictions at a 3 to 1 ratio.
The second question, was about the relative merits of trading goods freely at a 4 to 1 ratio versus "severe restrictions" at the 2 to 1 ratio. What makes this question different from the previous one is that you can trade goods "straight up" at the 4 to 1 ratio, whereas you need to build a harbor settlement to trade at either the 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 ratios. Building a harbor settlement is a non-trivial task, and it is this requirement (lack thereof actually), that distinguishes the otherwise unfavorable 4 to 1 ratio from the two others.
So is this a sufficient distinction to make the second question NOT a duplicate of the first? Because the first question didn't address the lack of a port requirement for the 4 to 1 ratio.
In chart form, the questions might look like this:
|Ratio||Favorability of Terms?||How Many Goods Traded?||Needs port?|
|2 to 1||Most favorable||Just one good traded||Needs port|
|3 to 1||Less favorable||All goods are traded||Needs port|
|4 to 1||Least favorable||All goods are traded||No port needed|
Question 1 asked for a comparison of 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 (rows 1 and 2). Question 2 asked for a comparison of 2 to 1 and 4 to 1 (rows 1 and 3).