PrepTest 135

Incorrect. This answer introduces another downside of the option that's used more frequently, thus making the paradox worse.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't explain why these resources aren't used to continuously maintain that infrastructure.

Incorrect. If even inadequate continuous maintenance has a positive effect, then it makes the paradox of it not being done worse.

Incorrect. If the alternative to continuous maintenance is so expensive that it requires special appropriations to fund, then that provides even more reason to use continuous maintenance, making the paradox worse.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
To manage infrastructure, you can use:
(1) Continuous maintenance, which is cheaper and prevents the need for. . .
(2) Radical reconstruction, which is expensive rebuilding when infrastructure fails and is much more expensive
The former is almost never used.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument compares two methods of maintaining infrastructure, showing that one prevents the need to take on the large expense of fixing failing structures. However, that cheaper and less drastic method is almost never used.

Since the paradox is related to this comparison, the correct answer will likely highlight a relevant difference between the two methods that has to do with implementation. Based on personal experience, it's probably got to do with urgency—we've all known we should fix something, but we didn't until it became an emergency and thus much more disruptive and expensive.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights continuous maintenance as less urgent, thus explaining why it would be "top of mind" less than something that is failing and thus needs radical reconstruction. It explains why a method that's cheaper would almost never be used, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Paradox questions frequently deal in comparisons. Correct answers generally "match" the stimulus—a stimulus with similarities will usually have answers with another relevant and explanatory similarity; a stimulus with differences, differences.