Brown is a better golfer than those younger than him. But the youngest is the best golfer. Therefore none can be younger than Brown. (Not a contradiction.) Brown is the youngest and the best golfer.

Brown has a larger income than those older than Clark. The oldest person has the highest income. Brown (the youngest) cannot have a higher income than the oldest, therefore none of them can be older than Clark. Clark is the oldest, most conservative, and has the highest income.

The Banker is not the oldest. The architect does not earn the most. The doctor is not the most conservative. Therefore Clark is the lawyer.

The banker is not the youngest. The doctor is not the best at golf. Therefore Brown is the architect.

Brown is the architect. The Doctor is less conservative than the architect. Jones is less conservative than Brown (the architect), while Smith is more conservative than Brown. Therefore Jones is the doctor.

That leaves Smith as the banker.

Clark (oldest) is the lawyer

Brown (youngest) is the architect

Jones is the doctor

Smith is the banker

You say that the youngest man is the best golfer, yet Brown is a better golfer than the men who are younger than he is.

You say that the oldest man has the largest income, yet Brown has a larger income than the men who are older than Clark.

These statements are contradictory.

banker = brown

architect = Jones

Doctor = Clark, best golfer

?