Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumEliminating One-Sided Explanations

Last year, wheat farmers in the Sunnyside Valley switched from using traditional organic compost to a new synthetic fertilizer called Nitromax. Following this switch, the total yield of wheat per hectare in the valley increased significantly compared to previous years. However, despite this increase in yield per hectare, the total revenue generated by the valley's wheat harvest was substantially lower this year than in any of the previous five years.

Which of the following statements, if true, help to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above? Select all that apply.

  1. The use of Nitromax alters the kernel texture of the wheat, causing wholesale buyers to classify the entire harvest as "livestock feed," which commands a drastically lower market price than the "premium baking grade" wheat the valley previously produced.Answer
  2. B
    Nitromax delivers nitrogen to the soil much more rapidly than organic compost, accelerating the vegetative growth phase of the wheat plants and resulting in larger, heavier grain heads.
  3. Due to an unusually harsh frost early in the planting season, farmers in the Sunnyside Valley planted wheat on only one-third of the hectares they had utilized in previous years.Answer
  4. D
    Encouraged by the manufacturer of Nitromax, a significantly greater percentage of the valley's agricultural land was devoted to growing wheat this year than in any of the previous five years.
  5. E
    Traditional organic compost relies on slow microbial breakdown, meaning that much of its nutritional value in previous years was lost to soil runoff before the wheat roots could absorb it.

Answer

The correct statements are the one indicating a drop in the wheat's classification to livestock feed and the one indicating a drastic reduction in planted hectares.
The paradox involves an increase in yield per hectare but a decrease in total revenue. Total revenue depends on yield per hectare, total hectares planted, and price per unit. The correct statements provide independent ways to bridge these facts: one explains that the price per unit drastically dropped because the wheat was downgraded to feed, and the other explains that the total number of hectares planted was drastically reduced. Either of these scenarios allows a higher yield per hectare to coexist with lower total revenue.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two apparently conflicting facts in the stimulus.
Fact 1: The yield of wheat per hectare increased significantly. Fact 2: The total revenue generated by the wheat harvest was substantially lower.
Resolving a paradox requires a precise understanding of the two elements that seem contradictory.
2
Determine the mathematical relationship that connects the two facts.
Total Revenue = (Yield per Hectare) × (Total Hectares Planted) × (Price per Unit).
By breaking down total revenue into its components, we can see how revenue could drop despite an increase in yield per hectare.
3
Evaluate the options to find those that explain how total revenue could drop while yield per hectare increased.
The option regarding 'livestock feed' addresses a drop in Price per Unit. The option regarding 'only one-third of the hectares' addresses a drop in Total Hectares Planted.
A correct answer must act as a bridge that allows both original facts to coexist without contradiction.

Key Concept

Resolving Paradoxes: Bridging Conflicting Facts
Rate this question

Topics

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations

More questions from this topic