Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardBridging Conflicting Premises

In the province of Veridia, a new agricultural policy heavily taxed the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers to reduce the environmental impact of agricultural runoff. Three years later, official environmental audits show that the total volume of nitrogen runoff originating from Veridian farms has increased significantly. This increase occurred even though the total acreage of farmed land in the province remained constant and the average amount of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer applied per acre decreased by 30 percent.

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

  1. A
    Industrial factories located upstream from the agricultural zones recently expanded their operations, contributing to a substantial increase in the overall nitrogen levels of the province's rivers.
  2. In order to maintain crop yields while reducing synthetic fertilizer use, Veridian farmers heavily substituted organic livestock manure, which leaches nitrogen into soil and runoff water at a substantially higher rate than synthetic fertilizers.Answer
  3. C
    While the average amount of synthetic fertilizer applied per acre decreased, the percentage of Veridian farmers utilizing at least some synthetic fertilizer increased over the same three-year period.
  4. D
    The region of Veridia has experienced severely below-average rainfall over the past three years, diminishing the primary mechanism by which soil nutrients are naturally washed into adjacent waterways.
  5. E
    The documented increase in agricultural nitrogen runoff perfectly coincided with a period of unprecedented economic deregulation in Veridia's neighboring provinces.

Answer

The correct answer identifies that farmers substituted synthetic fertilizers with organic livestock manure, which has a higher rate of nitrogen leaching.
The correct answer resolves the paradox by introducing an unintended consequence of the tax policy. Because farmers replaced the heavily taxed synthetic fertilizers with organic livestock manure, and because this manure leaches nitrogen at a much higher rate, the total amount of nitrogen running off the farms increased even though the use of the specifically targeted synthetic fertilizer decreased.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two seemingly conflicting premises in the stimulus.
Premise 1: Synthetic nitrogen use per acre dropped by 30 percent while farmed acreage remained constant. Premise 2: Total nitrogen runoff specifically originating from Veridian farms increased significantly.
Understanding the exact parameters of the conflict is required to find a viable bridging mechanism.
2
Evaluate the precise scope and wording of the discrepancy.
The runoff originates 'from Veridian farms' and involves 'nitrogen runoff' generally, not just synthetic nitrogen runoff.
This precise wording leaves room for non-synthetic sources of nitrogen on the farms to be the cause of the increase.
3
Analyze the options to find a mechanism that allows both premises to coexist.
The correct option reveals that farmers compensated for the drop in synthetic fertilizer by using organic manure, which leaches nitrogen at a much higher rate.
This provides the necessary context: total synthetic use dropped, but total nitrogen runoff from farms increased due to the substitution of a more runoff-prone fertilizer.

Key Concept

To resolve a paradox, one must find an unstated mechanism, often an unintended consequence or alternative cause, that allows two apparently contradictory facts to both be strictly true without violating the scope of either premise.
Rate this question

Topics

Bridging Conflicting Premises

More questions from this topic