Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 4 · Question 5

Incorrect. The stimulus specifically limits itself to discussing people getting sick "from eating tuna," so workers getting sick from exposure to the carbon monoxide is out of scope of the paradox.

Incorrect. If the paradox was that more people have been getting sick from eating tuna, then this answer choice might serve to resolve it. However, the paradox is that "such treatment" of tuna by a substance that doesn't make it more harmful has increased the number of people getting sick from tuna. An increase in tuna consumption doesn't explain why that treatment would have that effect, just why there might be more people getting sick from tuna.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Carbon monoxide is used to treat tuna so it doesn't brown with age, and it doesn't make it harmful, but it could result in more people getting sick.

Answer Anticipation:
The paradox here is how could something that doesn't make tuna harmful "in any way" still result in more people getting sick? Well, let's look at what the carbon monoxide actually does—it prevents browning as the tuna ages. In other words, it makes it harder for people to see that some tuna has gotten old. Can eating old fish make you sick? If you're uncertain of the answer to that question, you're luckier than the rest of us! Whether or not you've ever experienced it, though, it is common knowledge that food goes bad over time—especially meat, and especially fish—and so that should show up in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the carbon monoxide would prevent people from being able to tell that the tuna went bad, thus potentially causing food poisoning (and the answer choice even directly states that). This explains the paradox—while the tuna may not be more harmful, people might eat it after it's gone bad since it doesn't look bad.

Key Takeaway:
Don't forget that paradox questions require you to first identify the seemingly contradictory situation, and then finding an answer that allows them to coexist. If you don't have a clear view of the paradox, you're probably going to fall for a trap answer—either an answer that explains the wrong thing (e.g., answer choice (B)), or an answer that aligns with the information but doesn't explain it (not present here).

Incorrect. This doesn't speak to people getting sick, so it doesn't address the paradox.

Incorrect. Consumer preference doesn't explain why the people buying this treated tuna are more likely to get sick from it.