Active Resolution

The correct answer will positively resolve the paradox so both sides are true and the
conditions in the stimulus have been met. If an answer supports or proves only one
side of the paradox, that answer will be incorrect. The correct answer must show how
both sides coexist.
When first presented with a Resolve question, most student seek an answer
choice that destroys or disproves one side of the situation. They follow the
reasoning that if one side can be proven false, then the paradox will be
eliminated. While this is true, the test makers know that such an answer would
be obvious (it would simply contradict part of the facts given in the stimulus)
and thus this type of answer does not appear in these questions. Instead, the
correct answer will actively resolve the paradox, that is, it will allow both sides
to be factually correct and it will either explain how the situation came into
being or add a piece of information that shows how the two ideas or
occurrences can coexist.
Because you are not seeking to disprove one side of the situation, you must
select the answer choice that contains a possible cause of the situation. So,
when examining answers, ask yourself if the answer choice could lead to the
situation in the stimulus. If so, the answer is correct.
Please take a moment to complete the following problem:
1. Provinces and states with stringent car safety
requirements, including required use of seat belts and
annual safety inspections, have on average higher
rates of accidents per kilometer driven than do
provinces and states with less stringent requirements.
Nevertheless, most highway safety experts agree that
more stringent requirements do reduce accident rates.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to
reconcile the safety experts’ belief with the
apparently contrary evidence described above?
(A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires
are replaced before they grow old.
(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their
cars have passed a thorough safety
inspection.
(C) The roads in provinces and states with stringent
car safety programs are far more congested
and therefore dangerous than in other
provinces and states.
(D) Psychological studies show that drivers who
regularly wear seat belts often come to think
of themselves as serious drivers, which for a
few people discourages reckless driving.
(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety
requirements have, on average, many more
kilometers of roads then do other provinces
and states.
If the stimulus contains a where two items are, then an answer choice that explains a difference between the two cannot be correct.
Conversely, if the stimulus contains a paradox where two items are different, then an
answer choice that explains why two are similar cannot be correct.
In short, a similarity cannot explain a difference, and a difference cannot a similarity.
The paradox in the argument is that the provinces and states that have more
stringent safety requirements also have higher average rates of accidents. Even
so, experts agree that the more stringent requirements actually are effective. This
type of “surprisingly low/high rate of success” scenario has appeared in a
number of Resolve the Paradox questions, including the following:
An anti-theft device is known to reduce theft, but cars using the antitheft
device are stolen at a higher rate than cars without the device.
Explanation: The device is placed on highly desirable cars that
are prone to being stolen, and the device actually
lessens the rate at which they are stolen.
A surgeon has a low success rate while operating, but the director of the
hospital claims the surgeon is the best on the staff.
Explanation: The surgeon operates on the most complex and
challenging cases.
A bill collector has the lowest rate of success in collecting bills, but his
manager claims he is the best in the field.
Explanation: The bill collector is assigned the toughest cases to
handle.
These scenarios underscore the issue present in the question: other factors in the
situation make it more difficult to be successful. With the car safety
requirements, you should look for an answer that shows that there is a situation
with the roads that affects the accident rates. A second possible explanation is
that the seat belts are not actually used by a majority of drivers and the safety
inspections are not made or are rubber-stamp certifications. This answer is less
likely to appear because it is fairly obvious.
Answer choice (A): The stimulus specifies that annual safety inspections—
regardless of what is examined—are already in place. Therefore, this answer
does not explain why the average rate of accidents is higher in those states.
Answer choice (B): Assuming that overconfidence leads to accidents, the
answer could support the assertion that states with more stringent requirements
have higher accident rates. But, this answer would also suggest that the experts
are wrong in saying that more stringent standards reduce accident rates, so this
answer cannot be correct.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer, and the answer conforms to the
discussion above. If the roads are generally more dangerous, then the stringent
requirements could reduce the accident rate while at the same time the accident
rate could remain relatively high. Since this scenario allows all sides of the
situation to be correct and it explains how the situation could occur, this is the
correct answer.
Answer choice (D): This answer supports only one side of the paradox. The
answer confirms that the experts are correct, but it does not explain why these
provinces have higher accident rates. Thus, as explained in the second sidebar
on page 293, it does not resolve the paradox.
Answer choice (E): This answer appears attractive at first, but the number of
miles of roadway in the provinces is irrelevant because the stimulus specifically
references “accidents per kilometer driven.” Since the accident rate is calculated
as per-miles-driven, the actual number of miles of roadway is irrelevant.