Tuesday, December 17, 2013

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Paradox

Question Type: Paradox
A paradox arises when you are presented with two statements that are both true, yet
they appear to be mutually contradictory. The key words to help you spot paradox question
stems are “explain” and “reconcile.”
Some sample questions stems are
1. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the people
mentioned continued to grow beans?
2. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the finding of the
caffeine study?
3. Which one of the following, if true, helps to reconcile the statements above?
4. Which one of the following, if true, does the most to reconcile the apparent
conflict in the system described above?
Strategies
The stimulus argument in paradox questions usually includes a term that either must be
redefined in order to resolve the paradox, or contains a misinterpretation of a term upon
which the author relies. You must recognize the contradiction that exists and look for an
answer choice that more clearly defines a critical term.
We often refer to the “bumblebee paradox” with our tutoring students. Current research
suggests that a bumblebee’s wings are aerodynamically unsound; as a result, a bumblebee
should not be able to fly. However, bumblebees do fly, so clearly the term “aerodynamically
unsound” is poorly defined.
Sample Paradox Question
Consider the following example:

1. Researchers concur with one another on the issue of the harm that can result when
children are exposed to microscopic asbestos fibers. The resulting disease, asbestosis,
is almost always debilitating and even sometimes fatal. Many older school buildings
contain asbestos insulation around hot water pipes and heating ducts because, until
recently, the dangers of asbestos were unknown. Yet, these same researchers also
agree that laws requiring the removal of asbestos from schools could actually lead
to an increased likelihood of exposure to asbestos fibers to the students who attend
those schools.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy
in the researchers’ positions?
(A) New insulation materials used instead of asbestos are as potentially harmful
to children as asbestos is.
(B) The money that would be spent on the removal of asbestos from schools
could be spent in other ways that would be more likely to increase the
overall health of school children.
(C) Other sources of asbestos, such as automobile and household uses, are
responsible for more cases of asbestosis than school-based sources are.
(D) Removing the asbestos from older schools disperses a large quantity of
asbestos fibers into the air, where they are more easily inhaled than when
they are left in place around the pipes and ducts.
(E) Lead-based paint poses more of a health hazard to children than asbestos
does.
The best answer is D. Answer choice D provides an explanation for the suggestion not
to remove the asbestos. Essentially, this answer boils down to pointing out that the act of
removal itself is more dangerous than simply leaving the hazard in place. Answer choices
A, C, and E are all incorrect because they focus on other potential sources of harm rather
than the apparent conflict between the two positions that the researchers hold simultaneously:
1) that asbestos can cause serious harm, and 2) that it should not be removed from
schools. Answer choice B is incorrect because it focuses on financial issues rather than the
seemingly logical inconsistency inherent in the researchers’ positions.

No comments:

Post a Comment