PrepTest 120

Incorrect. If the population is up, then there are more people to eat carrots, and more people to have a vitamin A deficiency. This change explains how both things could go up—even if the rate of vitamin A deficiency stays the same.

Incorrect. This answer highlights a change to how carrots are prepared that could explain how people are eating more of them but getting less vitamin A, thus explaining the paradox.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Bizarro Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Carrots are a good source of vitamin A. Demand for carrots is up, but so is vitamin A deficiency.

Answer Anticipation:
As with all Paradox questions, we should start by defining the paradox. Here, it relates to carrots and vitamin A—If carrots are a good source of vitamin A, and demand for carrots is up, how can vitamin A deficiency also be up? You'd expect that more people would be getting enough vitamin A if the best source of the vitamin is being sold at higher rates.

So any answer that suggests a way for more carrots to be sold, but more people to have a vitamin A deficiency will resolve this paradox. That could be a larger population (which would naturally increase carrot demand and the number of people with a vitamin A deficiency, even if the same percentage of people have such a deficiency), or something about the carrots or overall diets that has changed.

Whatever the case, we have a change in carrot demand and vitamin A deficiency, so we're looking for other changes that can explain the paradox here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer explains the increased demand for carrots as people shift their diets to ones that include more carrots/vegetables, but it doesn't explain the increase in vitamin A deficiency. Since this answer doesn't address half of the paradox, it fails to resolve it, and it is therefore correct in this Bizarro Paradox question.

Key Takeaway:
Bizarro Paradox questions present 4 answers that provide an explanation (or partial explanation) for the paradox. Because they need such a variety of answers that provide such a resolution, the answers that provide an explanation can sometimes appear out of scope. If you clearly define the paradox, however, you can ask yourself about each "half" of it in the context of the answer choice to see if there's any connection between it and the complete paradox from the stimulus. Most of the time, the correct answer will only connect to one side of it.

Incorrect. This answer puts the change to demand into a context that can explain the failure of it to decrease deficiency rates. If the additional carrots are being eaten by people who mostly don't suffer from vitamin A deficiency (those with low deficiency rates are those who largely don't suffer from a deficiency), then it wouldn't be expected that the increase in demand would lead to a decrease in the overall deficiency rate. This answer doesn't explain the increase in the deficiency rate, but it does make it so that the increase in demand is no longer expected to decrease that rate. It provides a partial explanation for the phenomenon, which is enough to address the question stem ("help to resolve")

Incorrect. If carrots are less available, then demand wouldn't translate to increased consumption. In fact, this answer suggests that the demand is unmet, and since there are fewer carrots, fewer people can eat them to get vitamin A, thus leading to an increase in the deficiency rate. Essentially, this answer says that while demand has gone up, supply has gone down, and so fewer people can get carrots.