Examkin

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations

9 questions

All types9Multiple choice5Multiple select2Matching2
Question 1Question →

A recent software update was installed on all company computers. The IT department verified that the update significantly increased the computers' processing speeds, allowing them to execute commands much faster than before. However, in the week following the update, employees reported that it took them much longer to complete their standard daily tasks on these computers.

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

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The update introduced a completely redesigned and unfamiliar user interface, causing employees to spend significant time searching for the tools they need.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the update introduced an unfamiliar user interface, causing employees to spend time searching for tools.
The correct answer provides a mechanism that harmonizes both facts. By introducing a human element—confusion over a new interface—it explains why task completion is delayed despite the computer's internal processing speed being faster. Both facts can now logically coexist.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two conflicting premises in the stimulus.
Premise A: The computers process commands much faster. Premise B: Employees are taking longer to complete their daily tasks.
Understanding the exact nature of the apparent paradox is required before finding a resolution.
2
Determine what the correct answer must accomplish.
The correct answer must provide new information that allows both premises to be true simultaneously without contradicting either one.
A valid resolution bridges the gap between the two seemingly incompatible facts.
3
Evaluate the options against the criteria.
The option regarding the redesigned user interface explains that while the machine works faster (Premise A), the human operator works slower due to confusion (Premise B), resolving the conflict.
Other options either explain only one side of the issue, deepen the mystery, or introduce irrelevant correlations.

Key Concept

To resolve a paradox, the correct answer must actively reconcile both conflicting facts, whereas incorrect trap answers typically explain only one fact while ignoring or contradicting the other.
Question 2Question →

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.

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 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.; 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

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
Question 3Question →

Last year, Zenith Manufacturing Plant replaced all of its aging metal-cutting machines with state-of-the-art laser cutters. The manufacturer of the laser cutters guaranteed that they operate at twice the cutting speed of Zenith’s old machines and produce a significantly lower percentage of defective parts. However, an internal audit revealed that Zenith’s total monthly output of successfully finished, non-defective parts actually declined after the laser cutters were fully installed and operational.

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

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The laser cutters require intensive recalibration after every batch of parts, a process that forces the machines to sit completely idle for the vast majority of the workday, whereas the old machines ran continuously.

Answer

The statement indicating that the laser cutters require intensive recalibration after every batch, forcing them to sit idle for the vast majority of the workday.
The correct answer perfectly reconciles both conflicting facts by introducing a new operational variable: uptime. While the new machines cut twice as fast and have a lower defect rate while running (validating the manufacturer's guarantee), their massive downtime for recalibration means they spend far less time actually operating than the old machines did. This perfectly explains how Zenith's total monthly output of non-defective parts could decline despite the machines' superior speed and precision when active.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the apparent discrepancy presented in the stimulus.
Premise A establishes that the new machines cut twice as fast and have a lower defect rate. Premise B establishes that the total monthly output of non-defective parts actually declined.
Identifying the two conflicting facts is the mandatory first step in any paradox resolution question.
2
Identify the missing logical variable that connects speed/efficiency to total output.
Total output is determined by (Speed) × (Time operating) × (Success rate). Since speed and success rate improved, the missing variable must be a drastic reduction in 'Time operating'.
A valid resolution must allow the premises to remain entirely true while logically leading to the surprising outcome.
3
Evaluate the options to find the bridge mechanism that addresses both sides of the discrepancy.
The correct option introduces 'intensive recalibration' causing the machines to sit 'completely idle for the vast majority of the workday'.
This accepts that the machines are fast and precise when on, but explains the lower total output by revealing they are turned off most of the time.

Key Concept

Resolving a paradox requires identifying a new piece of information that bridges both seemingly contradictory premises without denying either one. Explanations that only account for one side of the conflict are incorrect traps.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 4Question →

Consider the following scenario often found in Logical Reasoning questions asking to resolve an apparent discrepancy.

Premise A: Last year, the city of Oakhaven banned heavy commercial trucks from driving through the downtown district in order to reduce road wear and tear.
Premise B: Over the following year, the total amount of severe pavement damage on downtown roads increased by 30%30\%.

Match each candidate explanation below to the exact logical role it plays in relation to this apparent discrepancy.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

To comply with the ban, delivery companies replaced each large truck with ten smaller vans, significantly increasing the total cumulative vehicle weight on downtown roads.
The city council enacted the truck ban primarily because downtown residents had organized a massive petition against the noise pollution caused by commercial vehicles.
The structural integrity of asphalt roads naturally degrades over time due to constant exposure to ultraviolet radiation and normal weather fluctuations.
Concurrent with the truck ban, the city entirely repaved the downtown district using a revolutionary new polymer-asphalt blend designed to be twice as durable as standard materials.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The statement about replacing trucks with vans reconciles the paradox. The statement about the noise petition is a one-sided trap explaining Premise A. The statement about ultraviolet radiation is a one-sided trap explaining Premise B. The statement about the new polymer-asphalt deepens the discrepancy.
By explicitly analyzing the logical function of each statement, we can see that a true resolution must bridge the two conflicting premises. Traps in paradox questions frequently rely on one-sided explanations that provide background for one premise while leaving the actual contradiction unaddressed.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core discrepancy in the stimulus.
The expectation is that banning heavy trucks (Premise A) should decrease road damage, but instead damage increased by 30% (Premise B).
A valid resolution must explain how both of these facts can be true simultaneously without contradicting either one.
2
Evaluate the statement regarding smaller vans replacing trucks.
This matches 'Reconciles the paradox'.
It explains that the ban (Premise A) inadvertently led to a massive increase in total vehicle weight, which logically results in more road damage (Premise B).
3
Evaluate the statement regarding the noise pollution petition.
This matches 'Acts as a one-sided trap by explaining the motivation for Premise A'.
It provides context for why the trucks were banned but is entirely silent on the issue of physical road damage.
4
Evaluate the statement regarding ultraviolet radiation.
This matches 'Acts as a one-sided trap by offering a general mechanism for Premise B'.
While it explains how roads degrade generally, UV radiation is a constant factor and does not explain a sudden 30% spike in damage right after a protective measure was taken.
5
Evaluate the statement regarding the new polymer-asphalt blend.
This matches 'Deepens the apparent discrepancy'.
Installing highly durable pavement means road damage should have plummeted. The fact that it increased by 30% anyway makes the situation even more baffling.

Key Concept

Identifying the precise logical role of trap answers in paradox questions, specifically recognizing explanations that account for only one side of the discrepancy.
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 5Question →

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.

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 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.; 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

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
Question 6Question →

Veridium Industries recently installed a new automated quality-control system for the raw components used in its smartphone assembly plant. This new system detects and discards defective components with 99.9 percent accuracy, successfully eliminating almost all pre-existing component flaws before assembly. However, over the following year, the percentage of fully assembled smartphones failing the standard post-assembly functionality tests due to hardware defects actually increased by 20 percent, even though the final assembly procedures, the workforce, and the post-assembly testing standards remained entirely unchanged.

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

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The automated quality-control system relies on intense magnetic fields that inadvertently magnetize certain metallic components, causing them to short-circuit only when connected to the smartphone's power supply during final testing.

Answer

The option stating that the automated system relies on intense magnetic fields that inadvertently magnetize components, causing them to short-circuit during final testing.
The correct answer provides a mechanism that bridges both sides of the discrepancy. It accepts Premise A (the system successfully removes pre-existing flaws) but introduces a critical new variable: the system itself creates a latent defect (magnetization). Because this latent defect only causes a short-circuit when the phone is finally powered on during the post-assembly test, it perfectly explains why the final failure rate increased (Premise B) despite the components being 'flawless' when they originally entered the assembly line.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the first conflicting premise (Premise A).
The new automated QC system successfully eliminates 99.9% of pre-existing component flaws before the components are assembled into smartphones.
Understanding the baseline expectation helps frame the paradox.
2
Identify the second conflicting premise (Premise B).
Despite the nearly perfect components entering assembly, the percentage of fully assembled smartphones failing final hardware tests increased by 20%, with no changes to the assembly process itself.
This establishes the unexpected outcome that contradicts the baseline expectation.
3
Define the precise nature of the discrepancy.
If components are entering the assembly process flawless, and the assembly process itself has not changed, how can there be a 20% increase in hardware defects at the final testing stage?
A clear definition of the gap is required to evaluate the answer choices accurately.
4
Evaluate the options for a bridging mechanism.
The correct answer must explain how a new defect is introduced either during or after the QC process, but before or during the final functionality test.
Only an option that addresses both the 'flawless input' and the 'flawed output' can resolve the paradox.
5
Select the correct option.
The option involving magnetic fields explains that the QC machine itself creates a latent defect (magnetization) that bypasses the assembly process undetected but triggers a failure during the final power test.
This perfectly reconciles the flawless initial state with the increased final failure rate.

Key Concept

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations
Question 7Question →

At the Apex Manufacturing plant, management recently replaced all cutting equipment on both Floor A and Floor B with identical new X-200 automated cutting machines. In the month following the upgrade, the amount of material waste produced on Floor A decreased by 30 percent compared to the previous month. However, during the exact same period, the amount of material waste produced on Floor B, which cuts the exact same materials to produce the exact same products, increased by 50 percent.

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

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Prior to the upgrade, Floor A utilized error-prone manual labor for its cutting tasks, whereas Floor B utilized older, highly precise laser cutters that the X-200 replaced solely to increase production speed.

Answer

The correct answer states that prior to the upgrade, Floor A used error-prone manual labor while Floor B used older, highly precise laser cutters.
The correct answer provides a unified historical context that explains both divergent outcomes. The paradox arises because identical new machines produced opposite results on two identical production lines. By revealing that the floors started from vastly different baselines—Floor A using inaccurate manual labor and Floor B using highly accurate laser cutters—the introduction of the X-200 machines logically results in an improvement for Floor A and a degradation for Floor B.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two conflicting premises in the stimulus.
Premise A: Waste on Floor A decreased by 30%. Premise B: Waste on Floor B increased by 50%. Both floors received identical new machines and process identical materials.
Understanding the exact parameters of the paradox is required to evaluate potential resolutions.
2
Determine the criteria for a successful resolution.
The correct answer must explain BOTH why Floor A's performance improved AND why Floor B's performance worsened following the exact same equipment upgrade.
An explanation that only accounts for one floor's change is incomplete and falls into a one-sided explanation trap.
3
Evaluate the answer choices against the established criteria.
Only the correct answer establishes a bridge by showing that the two floors had different starting baselines before the upgrade, meaning the new machines represented an upgrade in precision for Floor A but a downgrade in precision for Floor B.
This single piece of new information perfectly reconciles both halves of the apparent discrepancy.

Key Concept

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations
Question 8Question →

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.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

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.
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.
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.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

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.
Question 9Question →

Recently, the national retail chain BargainMart drastically reduced the variety of products it stocks, cutting its inventory from roughly 50,000 unique items to just 20,000. Surprisingly, despite offering far fewer choices to its customers, BargainMart's total revenue from sales increased by 15% over the exact same period, even though overall retail spending in the country remained flat.

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

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The items that BargainMart eliminated were primarily slow-moving products that had severely cluttered the aisles, and their removal made it much easier for customers to locate and purchase the chain's most popular, high-priced goods.

Answer

The correct answer explains that the removed items were cluttering the aisles, and their elimination helped customers locate and buy popular, high-priced goods.
The correct answer successfully bridges the gap between the two surprising facts. By stating that the eliminated items were cluttering the aisles and preventing shoppers from finding popular, high-priced goods, it provides a logical mechanism for how drastically reducing product variety directly caused an increase in sales revenue.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the apparent discrepancy in the stimulus.
Premise A states BargainMart cut its inventory from 50,000 to 20,000 items. Premise B states that total revenue increased by 15% despite offering fewer choices.
Resolving a paradox requires clearly understanding the two conflicting facts that need to be bridged.
2
Determine what a correct resolution must accomplish.
The correct answer must explain how drastically reducing product variety could actually lead to, or at least be consistent with, a significant increase in total sales revenue.
An answer that explains only one side of the discrepancy is a trap.
3
Evaluate the options against the one-sided explanation trap.
Options providing reasons for the inventory cut, like logistics costs, or alternative reasons for revenue growth, like extended hours, fail to link the two facts.
One-sided explanations leave the core tension unresolved.
4
Identify the option that reconciles both premises.
The option explaining that the removed items were cluttering the store and hiding high-priced goods successfully connects the inventory reduction directly to the revenue increase.
This establishes a causal bridge, showing how the first premise facilitated the second premise.

Key Concept

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations
Eliminating One-Sided Explanations Practice Questions — LSAT | Examkin