Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardEliminating One-Sided Explanations

Consider the following historical discrepancy:

Between 1300 and 1350 CE, the ancient settlement of Qalhat experienced a massive population boom and a significant expansion of its stone infrastructure. However, geological records indicate that during this exact same fifty-year period, the region's only nearby freshwater reservoir shrank drastically, reducing the local water supply to less than a third of its previous capacity.

Match each of the following hypothetical findings to its logical function in relation to this apparent discrepancy.

  • Excavations reveal that an extended period of lower-than-average precipitation in the broader geographic basin led to a steady drop in the regional water table during the fourteenth century.Accounts only for the drastic reduction in the local freshwater supply.
  • The majority of the new stone infrastructure built during this period consisted of deep subterranean cisterns that allowed the settlement to capture and efficiently store heavy, seasonal monsoon rains for year-round use.Reconciles the population and infrastructure growth with the reduced local freshwater supply.
  • In 1301 CE, the settlement became the administrative capital of a newly unified empire, which mandated that all regional trade pass through the city's newly constructed stone markets.Accounts only for the massive population boom and infrastructure expansion.

Answer

The precipitation finding explains only the reduced water supply. The cisterns finding reconciles the discrepancy. The administrative capital finding explains only the population boom.
A valid resolution to a paradox must act as a bridge between the two conflicting facts. The finding regarding the subterranean cisterns is the only one that achieves this, demonstrating how the infrastructure boom itself bypassed the need for the shrinking reservoir. The other findings represent classic one-sided traps: one explains the drought while ignoring the population growth, and the other explains the population growth while ignoring the drought.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two conflicting premises that create the discrepancy.
Premise A is the population and infrastructure boom. Premise B is the drastically shrinking freshwater reservoir.
Resolving a paradox requires clearly isolating the two facts that appear to contradict each other.
2
Evaluate the precipitation finding against both premises.
It provides a cause for the shrinking reservoir (Premise B) but leaves the population boom (Premise A) unexplained in the face of a drought.
An explanation that only addresses one side of a discrepancy does not resolve the paradox.
3
Evaluate the cisterns finding against both premises.
It reveals that the new infrastructure captured alternate water sources (monsoons), bridging the gap between population growth and the loss of the reservoir.
A true resolution must provide a mechanism that allows both apparently conflicting premises to coexist logically.
4
Evaluate the administrative capital finding against both premises.
It explains the cause of the population and infrastructure boom (Premise A) but entirely ignores the constraint of the shrinking water supply (Premise B).
Identifying the catalyst for growth does not explain how that growth was sustained without water.

Key Concept

Eliminating one-sided explanations in paradox questions by ensuring the correct answer accounts for both conflicting premises.
Rate this question

Topics

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations

More questions from this topic