3.20 - Paradox

Last but not least, we're finishing our breakdown of LR question types with a personal favorite: Paradox questions. Each one's a bite-sized mystery just begging to be solved.

These questions typically look like this:

• Which one of the, if true, most helps to explain the apparent paradox?
• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?
• Each of the following, if true, contributes to an explanation of the circumstances mentioned except:

On Paradox questions, you'll be presented with some seemingly incompatible circumstances and then you'll be asked to find an explanation that resolves the discrepancy.

The right answer will explain the circumstances or solve the mystery. The wrong answers will either make matters worse or have no impact.

Let's take a look at some examples.

Examples

June 2007 PrepTest, Section 3, Question 2

First up is Question 2 from Test J, Section 3:

After replacing his old gas water heater with a new, pilotless, gas water heater that is rated as highly efficient, Jimmy's gas bills increased.

Poor Jimbo. It's never fun to get a higher gas bill, much less after replacing your old water heater. But I can think of several reasons why Jimmy's gas bill went up despite the upgrade.

What if Jimmy got a roommate recently, effectively doubling his water bill? What if he started taking longer showers because he finally has a competent water heater? What if he installed it immediately before winter?

Any of these explanations would help us understand Jimmy's conundrum.

The question throws in that pesky word except, so we're looking for the answer choice that doesn't help us understand Jimmy's heightened gas bill. Let's take a look.

Answer choice A looks pretty good off the bat. It reads, "The new water heater users a smaller percentage of the gas used by Jimmy's household than did the old one." That would make this paradox worse, so that's gonna be the answer. Let's eliminate B through E, just to be sure.

B rings true to my "new roommate" prediction. Sure, if Jimmy's uncle just moved immediately after installing the water heater, it makes total sense that the gas bill would go up. B's out.

C's pretty similar to my "takes longer showers" prediction. That is, if Jimmy used to use a laundromat (no gas usage doing laundry) to using a new, gas dryer (at least some gas usage doing laundry), then of course the bill went up. C's out.

Oof, D makes me sympathize with Jimmy. If the gas company increased rates, Jimmy's bill was bound to increase no matter what. D's out.

E's right on the money with my "winter" prediction. If unusually cold weather struck right after installing the new water heater, it makes total sense that the gas bill would increase (even if for reasons outside the water heater). E's out, too.

A's our answer.

June 2007 PrepTest, Section 2, Question 25

Next, let's tackle a harder one, Question 25 from Test J, Section 2:

During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation.

Curious. So, during the 1800s in France, private art sponsorship went down and academy sponsorship went way up. The academy discouraged artistic innovation, affecting sculpture how we'd expect, but not painting. What might be going on here?

Here's a thought: What if international private patronage of French painters increased in a way that it didn't for sculptors? That would help explain why painting innovation flourished while sculpture innovation stagnated.

Here's another: When was the last time you made a sculpture? How about a painting? I'd venture a guess that most of you have made more paintings than sculptures. Why? Because stone is expensive—the barriers to entry are much higher for sculpture! So what if it was just easier for French painters to buy their materials without sponsorship? Totally plausible.

Let's check out the answer choices.

Answer choice A makes the paradox more confusing, not less. If more painters received patronage than sculptors, we'd expect the opposite results. A's out.

B makes things worse as well. Even if fewer overall painters received patronage, they still received more money. We'd expect the opposite result. B's out.

C gets us there, and is a near match to my "barriers to entry" prediction. If far more paintings were made compared to sculptures, principally due to material cost, it makes total sense why we'd see painting innovations while sculpture innovation lagged behind. This is the answer.

D's irrelevant. If lots of sculptors also painted (which they probably did), then we'd expect those paintings by those painters to be less innovative. But this doesn't address what people who paint but don't sculpt did during the period. D's out.

E's just plain confusing. If the academy was funding sculptors and painters, but funding them less overall, we might expect even more innovation, assuming artists could afford to make their art. E's out.

---

That does it for Paradox questions, and for our LR question type breakdowns. Next, we're finishing up our Logical Reasoning chapter by exploring some of the LSAT's most common flaws. See you there.