PrepTest 133

Incorrect. If anything, this would suggest a reason to believe the reports are incomplete and inaccurate, not accurate as the stem directs us to treat them as. That said, chemical analysis doesn't necessarily impact erosion, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer might show that they used some high-tech means of gathering evidence, but it doesn't explain how their seemingly contradictory conclusions can both be accurate.

Incorrect. There's no indication that this should have affected the results and, even if it did, we still don't know how to reconcile the seemingly contradictory reports.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Study 1 - This region suffers relatively little erosion
Study 2 - Regional erosion is heavy and concerning

Answer Anticipation:
This Paradox question is a tricky one. Both studies are focused on one region. Both are focused on erosion. But one of them concluded there was little erosion, and the other concluded there was a lot of erosion. Those conclusions are seemingly contradictory.

Since we're told to find an answer that explains how both studies could be accurate, we need to find a difference between the studies that would allow these conclusions to both be true. Since the region is the same, it's likely that there's something about the erosion they looked at.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a possible way that these two reports could both be accurate—while they would be reaching contradictory conclusions if they were talking about erosion of the same soil, they're looking at different soil. It's possible that topsoil isn't subject to erosion in the area, but the riverbanks do see significant erosion.

Key Takeaway:
Be sure to clearly define the paradox in a Paradox question. Here, it was important to note that the question stem told us to find an answer that explained how both reports could be accurate, which defined the paradox since their conclusions seemed contradictory.

Incorrect. The cost doesn't relate to the accuracy, or explain how two seemingly contradictory reports could both be accurate.