Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardEliminating One-Sided Explanations

The city of Oakhaven recently implemented a strict ban on all commercial wood-burning ovens in restaurants in order to reduce particulate matter pollution (PM2.5) in the downtown area. However, six months after the ban was fully enforced, the average daily PM2.5 levels in downtown Oakhaven have actually increased significantly compared to the same period last year.

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

  1. To compensate for the ban, most downtown restaurants switched to inexpensive coal-fired stoves, which emit substantially more PM2.5 per hour of cooking than wood-burning ovens do.Answer
  2. B
    The city's environmental monitors recorded a 20 percent drop in PM2.5 emissions specifically tracing back to restaurant chimneys since the ban took effect.
  3. The wood-burning ovens previously provided the majority of ambient heating for downtown restaurants during winter, and restaurants have replaced them with inefficient diesel space heaters that produce massive amounts of PM2.5.Answer
  4. D
    Prior to the ban, commercial wood-burning ovens were identified by the city council as the most significant preventable source of air pollution in the downtown district.
  5. E
    The total number of restaurant patrons visiting downtown Oakhaven has increased by a large margin over the past six months.

Answer

The correct statements are the one describing restaurants switching to coal-fired stoves and the one describing the adoption of diesel space heaters for ambient heat.
The correct answers successfully reconcile both premises by explaining how the implementation of the ban directly caused a new, more severe source of PM2.5 pollution. By showing that the elimination of wood-burning ovens forced restaurants to adopt worse alternatives (coal-fired stoves for cooking or diesel heaters for warmth), these statements make both the enforcement of the ban and the subsequent rise in pollution logically compatible.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two conflicting premises.
Premise A: A major source of PM2.5 (wood-burning ovens) was banned and eliminated. Premise B: Total PM2.5 levels increased significantly anyway.
Understanding the exact nature of the discrepancy is required to find a statement that bridges them.
2
Determine what a successful resolution must accomplish.
The correct answers must explain how removing the wood-burning ovens actively led to an increase in pollution, accounting for both the ban's enforcement and the unexpected outcome.
A valid resolution cannot ignore one of the premises; it must make both premises mutually compatible.
3
Evaluate the options for one-sided explanations or paradox-deepening traps.
Statements explaining why the ban was put in place or confirming that the ban worked on its specific target fail to explain the overall increase in pollution.
Eliminating one-sided traps is the core skill in this specific question type.
4
Select the statements that provide a causal bridge.
The statements about coal-fired stoves and diesel space heaters both demonstrate how the ban itself forced a behavioral change that resulted in higher PM2.5 emissions.
These statements successfully reconcile both sides of the apparent discrepancy.

Key Concept

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations

More questions from this topic