PrepTest 109

Incorrect. This answer doesn't tie into the longevity of the trees at all, so it doesn't resolve the paradox.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Certain cedars grow on cliffs and forests:
Cliffs — Receive few nutrients and don't get very big
Forests — Plenty of nutrients and get very big
But many trees on the cliffs are over 500 years old, but most of the forest ones don't even make it to 400 years

Answer Anticipation:
As with all Paradox questions, we should start by clearly defining the paradox. Here, the situation compares two sets of cedar trees—those growing on cliffs, and those growing in the forest. The former receive fewer nutrients and grow smaller, so one might expect them to be less healthy and thus live shorter. However, many of them live much longer than almost any forest tree.

Everything about this stimulus focuses on differences, including the paradox. So we should look for an answer that either brings up another difference to explain the different life expectancies, or an answer that connects an existing difference to the longer lives of the cliff cedars.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a threat faced by forest trees but not cliff trees, so it's a difference tied directly into longevity. If there are frequent forest fires that don't make it to the cliffs, then this would explain how the cliff trees outlive the forest trees—the latter burn down in a fire, while the cliff trees persist.

Key Takeaway:
Always clearly define the paradox when dealing with this question type! Certain trap answers will explain a different aspect of the stimulus.

Incorrect. This would be true of both the cliff and forest trees, so it doesn't explain why one group lives longer than the other.

Incorrect. This answer provides a reason for the cliff trees being smaller than the forest trees, but we already had one of those (they receive very few nutrients), and it wasn't the paradox, so this answer doesn't resolve the stimulus. This answer highlights why it's important to define the paradox—so you don't fall for an answer that explains another feature of the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer is presumably suggesting that the trees are chopped down for lumber for furniture. But first, that's only occasionally, so it's hard to imagine an entire forest's worth of trees having their lives cut short here. And also, the cliff trees could also serve as lumber, so this doesn't present a difference between the two trees. (If you assumed it'd be harder to chop down a cliff tree, that's not established. Maybe the cliffs are closer to town so they're easier to transport. Maybe cliff wood is sturdier. Maybe smaller trees are easier to cut down for furniture.)