PrepTest 141

Incorrect. While this might suggest to the respondents that the survey results could be used to support a push to replace the hall, there's no indication that this should make those respondents want to stop that push. It's possible knowing that there's a group advocating for an upgrade to the concert hall could make people more likely to want that to happen.

Incorrect. If these people are mostly concertgoers, this answer doesn't explain why they wouldn't want it to be torn down despite the features that could be added since it never states that the teardown/rebuild will inconvenience this group. If they aren't mostly concertgoers, then information about them doesn't resolve a paradox about survey results from concertgoers.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the concertgoers are aware of this, or that they'd care if they did—even if the construction industry would benefit more from a new hall, these concertgoers would, as well, so they might be fine with the construction industry doing well.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
A certain concert hall can't accommodate wider seats and better acoustics. Concertgoers largely want wider seats and better acoustics at their concert hall, but they don't want to tear down the existing hall to build a new one with those features.

Answer Anticipation:
The concertgoers have a goal/preference—wider seats and better acoustics. There's one way to reach that goal—tear down the existing concert hall and build a new one that has those features. However, that method is opposed by the group—so there must be some other consideration that we're not aware of. Either there's something else that the concert hall has that makes it worth preserving despite these features (e.g., maybe concertgoers prioritize history over acoustics/seating), or there's another way for this group to get their wider seats and better acoustics without tearing down the existing hall. The correct answer should highlight one of these two things.

Answer Explanation:
Since this plan is well-publicized, it's reasonable to believe that concertgoers are generally aware of it. If the plan is to reuse the current hall as a public auditorium and build a new concert hall—one that could have better acoustics and wider seats—then it makes sense that this group would oppose tearing down the current hall. There's now a way for them to get what they want and something else, so why would they support a plan that gives them less of a benefit?

Key Takeaway:
When a group opposes a means of achieving their goal, there must be something else at play—some alternative consideration or option. Here, the concertgoers wanted wider seats and better acoustics, but they opposed one means of achieving that goal. The correct answer, therefore, was likely to raise an alternative and preferable means of achieving that goal, or an alternative consideration that was more important to them than the seats and acoustics—and the correct answer raised the former.

Incorrect. If anything, this provides a reason for the group to want the new concert hall to be built, making the paradox worse.