Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaResolve the Paradox

Each scenario below describes an apparent discrepancy between an expected outcome and an observed result. Pair each scenario with the factual explanation that successfully accounts for both observations.

  • A municipal water authority introduced generous financial rebates for installing high-efficiency drip irrigation, yet total residential water consumption during dry summer months increased across participating households.Homeowners who adopted the subsidized drip equipment significantly expanded the overall surface area of their decorative gardens, offsetting per-square-foot efficiency gains.
  • A state highway department installed automated speed-enforcement cameras along a dangerous highway corridor, which successfully decreased vehicle speeding but led to a notable rise in total multi-vehicle collisions.Drivers familiar with the camera locations frequently braked abruptly upon approaching the monitoring gantries, resulting in frequent rear-end collisions by trailing vehicles.
  • Archaeological excavations at a desert trading post revealed a marked increase in large-game animal bone refuse during an extended historical drought when regional wildlife populations experienced severe declines.Severe water shortages concentrated the remaining regional wildlife populations exclusively around the few perennial springs located adjacent to the trading post, greatly enhancing hunting efficiency.

Cevap

The water rebate scenario pairs with garden expansion offsetting per-unit savings; the speed camera scenario pairs with sudden driver braking causing rear-end collisions; and the desert post game-bone scenario pairs with wildlife concentrating around local perennial springs.
Each correct pairing supplies an unstated factual mechanism that resolves the discrepancy without denying either established premise: the irrigation scenario is resolved by behavioral expansion of garden beds; the camera scenario is resolved by sudden driver braking creating rear-end hazards; and the archaeological hunting scenario is resolved by the spatial clustering of prey around surviving water sources.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze each scenario on the left to identify the two conflicting observations.
Identified the core discrepancies: (1) higher water use despite efficient equipment, (2) more collisions despite reduced speeding, and (3) more game hunted despite lower regional game populations.
Resolving a paradox requires isolating both factual premises so that neither is contradicted.
2
Evaluate the causal mechanisms on the right to find propositions that allow both premises in a given scenario to be simultaneously true.
Matched rebound behavior (expansion of garden size) to the irrigation paradox; matched sudden driver braking to the highway camera collision paradox; and matched localized prey clustering to the desert hunting paradox.
A valid resolution provides an auxiliary fact that bridges the gap between the unexpected outcome and the baseline fact without denying either.
3
Confirm that each match establishes a unique, non-overlapping resolution for all three pairs.
Each scenario on the left pairs unambiguously with exactly one underlying explanation on the right.
Ensures that all pairs form a complete, consistent one-to-one mapping.

Anahtar Kavram

Reconciling apparent discrepancies by identifying an auxiliary causal factor that allows both stated premises to coexist without contradiction.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Resolve the Paradox

Bu konudan daha fazla soru