Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardExplaining Surprising Outcomes

Scenario: A local government introduced a generous financial subsidy for homeowners who install advanced solar panels, aiming to decrease the region's overall residential reliance on the municipal power grid. Within a year, 40 percent of households installed the subsidized panels, which generate significantly more electricity than a typical household consumes during daylight hours. Surprisingly, utility records show that the total amount of electricity drawn from the municipal grid by residential neighborhoods actually increased during that same year.

Statement: The apparent discrepancy is logically resolved by the fact that the solar panels only generate electricity during daylight hours, meaning that participating households must still draw all of their electricity from the municipal grid during the evening and night.

Answer: Answer

Answer

False
The statement fails to resolve the paradox because it relies on a static fact to explain a contradictory dynamic change. Before the solar panels were installed, households relied on the grid during both the day and the night. After installation, daytime grid reliance was eliminated for nearly half the households while their nighttime reliance remained unchanged. Mathematically, this must result in a net decrease in total grid usage. Pointing out that nighttime usage still exists merely explains why total usage didn't drop to zero; it completely fails to explain the surprising outcome that total grid usage actually increased.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the core discrepancy in the scenario.
The paradox is that solar panels eliminated daytime grid reliance for 40% of households, yet the overall residential grid usage increased.
A clear grasp of the conflicting facts is necessary to evaluate potential resolutions.
2
Analyze the proposed explanatory statement.
The statement claims that households still rely on the grid at night because the panels only work during the day.
We must determine exactly what causal mechanism the statement provides.
3
Evaluate whether the statement reconciles the conflicting facts.
It does not. Prior to the panels, households used the grid both day and night. Eliminating daytime usage while maintaining nighttime usage results in a net decrease. The statement cannot explain an increase.
A valid resolution must actively account for the unexpected direction of the change (the increase), not merely explain why the decrease was not 100%.

Key Concept

Identifying explanations that fail to account for relative changes and merely state static facts.
Rate this question

Topics

Explaining Surprising Outcomes

More questions from this topic