Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardExplaining Surprising Outcomes

In an effort to combat a rising rate of a severe tick-borne illness, the public health department of Woodlands County heavily subsidized a new, highly effective chemical tick repellent. The repellent was widely adopted and applied correctly by nearly all outdoor recreationists in the county. However, public health records indicate that in the year following the subsidy's introduction, the infection rate of the tick-borne illness among outdoor recreationists in Woodlands County increased significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?

  1. A
    Because the repellent was practically free, the total number of people participating in outdoor recreation in Woodlands County doubled during the year following the subsidy.
  2. B
    The newly subsidized repellent is scientifically proven to be significantly more effective at deterring the disease-carrying ticks than any of the alternative preventive measures that residents had previously utilized.
  3. Confident in the new repellent's efficacy, outdoor recreationists in the county shifted from hiking exclusively on cleared paths to routinely navigating dense, untrailed brush where tick density is extraordinarily high.Answer
  4. D
    During the year following the subsidy, an unusually mild winter and wet spring led to a moderate increase in the overall tick population throughout Woodlands County and neighboring regions.
  5. E
    The severe tick-borne illness is also occasionally transmitted by a specific species of mosquito, and the new chemical repellent provides no protection against mosquito bites.

Answer

The statement indicating that recreationists, confident in the repellent, began navigating dense, untrailed brush where tick density is extraordinarily high.
The correct answer successfully resolves the paradox by demonstrating how the introduction of the protective measure directly caused a behavioral shift. Because the recreationists felt fully protected by the highly effective repellent, they began exposing themselves to overwhelmingly higher numbers of ticks in untrailed brush. This massive increase in exposure overwhelmed the preventative benefits of the repellent, perfectly explaining how a highly effective safety measure could ultimately result in a higher infection rate.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the stimulus to pinpoint the exact nature of the apparent discrepancy.
Fact 1: A highly effective tick repellent was widely adopted and correctly applied. Fact 2: The infection rate of a tick-borne illness among users increased significantly in the following year.
Understanding the precise conflict between the premises is required before evaluating which statement can logically reconcile them.
2
Determine the necessary characteristics of a correct resolution.
The correct answer must bridge the two facts by explaining how an effective preventative measure could actively coexist with, or even lead to, a higher rate of the illness it is meant to prevent.
A valid resolution in LSAT Logical Reasoning must actively reconcile the conflicting facts rather than just explaining one fact while ignoring the other.
3
Evaluate the options against the required characteristics, watching for common trap answers.
The option describing a shift to high-risk environments shows that the repellent caused a behavioral change (risk compensation), leading to massively increased exposure that overpowered the repellent's efficacy.
This is the only statement that logically connects the widespread use of the effective repellent directly to the surprising increase in the infection rate.

Key Concept

Resolving Paradoxes through Behavioral Feedback Mechanisms (Risk Compensation)
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Explaining Surprising Outcomes

More questions from this topic