Test: Resolve a Paradox - GMAT MCQ

In this question, the student is given information about the female earless seal and the events surrounding gestation and breeding. According to the passage, the female earless seal gestates for anywhere from nine to eleven months (depending on the variety of earless seal) and gives birth to and nurses only one pup at a time. The passage notes that during a bad season up to three female earless seals in a colony will die three months after giving birth, although all of the pups usually survive. Considering that other female seals cannot nurse orphaned pups – since each lactating female can nurse only a single pup – a natural expectation is that the pups would die with their mothers, since they have no one to nurse them. However, the pups all survive. The question asks the student to select an answer choice that best explains this discrepancy.

D Answer choice (D) indicates that the mother seals nurse the pups only up to a month at the longest, suggesting that after a month the pups are capable of locating food for themselves. This answer choice thus provides a sufficient explanation for why the mother seals might die three months after giving birth, while the pups survive: the pups are finished nursing by this point and can find their own food. Answer choice (D) is correct.

(A) contradicts the statement in the passage that the mother seals give birth to and nurse only one pup at a time and then use most of their energy to nurse that single pup, often fasting while she is lactating. Answer choice (A) cannot be correct.

(B), although interesting, is irrelevant to explaining the discrepancy. The question asks for a reason that the pups survive although the mothers do not; answer choice (B) simply diverts from this point to say that very often the mothers do not die. Moreover, answer choice (B) ignores the statement in the question about the reason for mothers dying during a bad season. Answer choice (B) is clearly incorrect and can be eliminated immediately.

(C) does not explain why seal pups survive even when their mothers die. It is not surprising that some female seals do not give birth (for instance, because they are not sexually mature). The existence of such seals alone does not explain why more pups survive (there is nothing in the passage to suggest they would nurse the orphaned pups, for example).

(E) As with answer choice (B), answer choice (E) ignores the central question by offering interesting but irrelevant information. The question asks for a reason for the discrepancy between mother seals dying three months after giving birth while the pups survive. Answer choice (E) merely provides information about some of the mothers living up to six months. Because this is unrelated to why pups live when mothers die, answer choice (E) is incorrect.

Let's analyze each answer choice and see which one best explains the disparity between the prostate cancer death rate in Rubaria and Terland.

(A) Effective treatment of prostate cancer in its early stages generally requires medical techniques available in Rubaria but not in Terland.

• This answer choice suggests that Rubaria has advanced medical techniques for treating prostate cancer, which could contribute to a higher death rate if those techniques are not available in Terland. However, it does not explain why the death rate is higher in Rubaria specifically.

(B) Most men who have prostate cancer are older than the average life expectancy for male inhabitants of Terland.

• This answer choice provides a plausible explanation. If most men with prostate cancer in Terland are older than the average life expectancy, it means that they are more likely to die from other causes before prostate cancer becomes a significant threat. This could explain why the prostate cancer death rate is lower in Terland compared to Rubaria, where the population may have a longer life expectancy.

(C) Being in poor general health does not increase one’s risk of developing prostate cancer.

• This answer choice is irrelevant to explaining the disparity in prostate cancer death rates between Rubaria and Terland. It focuses on the risk of developing prostate cancer, not the death rate associated with it.

(D) It is possible to decrease one’s risk of getting prostate cancer by eating certain kinds of foods, and such foods are more readily available in Rubaria than in Terland.

• This answer choice discusses the risk of getting prostate cancer, not the death rate. It does not directly explain why the death rate is higher in Rubaria.

(E) Among men in Rubaria, the death rate from prostate cancer is significantly higher for those who do not take full advantage of Rubaria’s health care system than for those who do.

• This answer choice is specific to Rubaria and suggests that not taking advantage of the health care system leads to a higher death rate from prostate cancer. However, it does not explain why the death rate in Rubaria is higher than in Terland.

After analyzing each answer choice, we can see that (B) is the best option. It provides a plausible explanation for the higher prostate cancer death rate in Rubaria compared to Terland by stating that most men with prostate cancer in Terland are older than the average life expectancy, which means they are less likely to die from prostate cancer before dying from other causes.

It presents a discrepancy between two studies regarding the effects of beta-carotene intake on health. The first study suggests that a high intake of beta-carotene-rich foods is linked to a lower risk of cancer and heart disease, while the second study indicates that beta-carotene supplements have no effect on health. The task is to find the option that does not help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the two studies. Let's analyze each answer choice:

(A) The human body processes the beta-carotene present in foods much more efficiently than it does beta-carotene supplements.

• If true, this statement explains why the beta-carotene obtained from foods is more effective than the supplements. It resolves the discrepancy by highlighting the difference in efficiency between the two sources.

(B) Beta-carotene must be taken for longer than 12 years to have any cancer-preventive effects.

• This statement suggests that the duration of beta-carotene intake might be a factor in its cancer-preventive effects. It provides a possible explanation for the conflicting results between the two studies.

(C) Foods rich in beta-carotene also tend to contain other nutrients that assist in the human body’s absorption of beta-carotene.

• If true, this statement suggests that the combination of beta-carotene with other nutrients present in the foods contributes to its beneficial effects. It helps to explain why beta-carotene obtained from foods is more effective than supplements.

(D) In the 12-year study, half of the subjects were given beta-carotene supplements and half were given a placebo.

• This statement mentions the study design of the 12-year study, indicating that there was a control group (given a placebo). It suggests that the study was properly conducted and controlled, which makes the lack of positive or negative effects of beta-carotene supplements more reliable. This option does not help resolve the discrepancy between the two studies.

(E) In the 24-year study, the percentage of the subjects who had a high intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked cigarettes was much smaller than the percentage of the subjects with a low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked.

• This statement introduces an additional factor, smoking, which may confound the results of the 24-year study. It suggests that the difference in smoking rates between the high intake and low intake groups might have influenced the outcomes. This helps to explain the difference in health outcomes between the two groups.

Considering the analysis above, we can conclude that option (D) is the correct answer because it does not help to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the two studies.

The argument states that because a history book written hundreds of years ago contains inconsistencies, the author must have been getting information from more than one source. The conclusion drawn is that the author used multiple sources.

To identify the flaw, we need to find an answer choice that shows the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Let's analyze each answer choice:

(A) authors generally try to reconcile discrepancies between sources

• This answer choice is irrelevant to the argument. It discusses authors' attempts to reconcile discrepancies between sources but does not address the claim that the author used multiple sources. It does not explain why the book contains inconsistencies.

(B) the inconsistencies would be apparent to the average reader of the history book at the present time

• This answer choice is also irrelevant to the argument. It discusses whether the average reader can identify the inconsistencies but does not address the claim that the author used multiple sources.

(C) the history book’s author used no source that contained inconsistencies repeated in the history book

• This answer choice correctly identifies the flaw in the argument. It suggests that the author may have used multiple sources, but those sources may have contained inconsistencies that are not repeated in the history book. Therefore, the presence of inconsistencies does not necessarily indicate the use of multiple sources.

(D) the author of the history book was aware of the kinds of inconsistencies that can arise when multiple sources are consulted

• This answer choice is also irrelevant to the argument. It discusses the author's awareness of inconsistencies that can arise when multiple sources are consulted but does not address whether the author actually used multiple sources.

(E) the author of the history book was familiar with all of the available source material that was relevant to the history book

• This answer choice is also irrelevant to the argument. It discusses the author's familiarity with all available source material but does not address whether the author actually used multiple sources.

Therefore, the correct answer is (C) because it identifies the flaw in the argument by suggesting that the author may have used multiple sources without repeating the inconsistencies found in those sources.

The discrepancy is that despite the online retailer implementing in-person pickup options in major cities, which accounted for over 30% of purchases, the parcel delivery costs increased by more than 10% over the previous year.

Let's evaluate each answer choice:

(A) Only certain products were eligible to be picked up at stores.

• This answer choice does not provide any information about the increase in parcel delivery costs. It only introduces a condition about the eligibility of products for in-person pickup, which is not relevant to the discrepancy. Therefore, this answer choice does not reconcile the discrepancy.

(B) The ability to pick up purchases at stores was inconvenient for customers who did not live in major cities.

• While this answer choice suggests that customers outside major cities found the in-person pickup option inconvenient, it does not explain why the parcel delivery costs increased. Therefore, this answer choice does not reconcile the discrepancy.

(C) The retailer fulfilled over 60% more orders than it did the previous year.

• This answer choice explains the increase in parcel delivery costs. If the retailer fulfilled over 60% more orders than the previous year, it means there was a significant increase in overall order volume. As a result, even though more customers opted for in-person pickup, the increased volume of orders being delivered led to higher parcel delivery costs. This answer choice reconciles the discrepancy and provides a plausible explanation.

(D) The average cost of a parcel delivery was 10% higher than it was the previous year.

• This answer choice suggests that the cost of each parcel delivery increased. While this may contribute to the overall increase in parcel delivery costs, it does not explain why the in-person pickup option did not significantly reduce those costs. Therefore, this answer choice does not reconcile the discrepancy.

(E) Parcel delivery costs increased year over year for the online retail industry as a whole.

• This answer choice provides information about the general trend in the industry but does not explain why the specific retailer experienced an increase in parcel delivery costs despite the implementation of the in-person pickup option. Therefore, this answer choice does not reconcile the discrepancy.

Based on the analysis, answer choice (C) is the best option as it explains the increase in parcel delivery costs by suggesting a substantial increase in overall order volume.

This question is based on a passage discussing Hardin's argument regarding the use of common grazing land compared to private grazing land. Hardin's argument suggests that common land would be used less carefully because individuals would be tempted to overuse it, while the costs of overuse would be shared among all users. However, the study mentioned in the passage shows that common land is actually in better condition than private land. We are asked to choose the option that, if true and known by the ranchers, would best explain this result.

Let's analyze each option:

(A) With private grazing land, both the costs and the benefits of overuse fall to the individual user.

• This option does not provide a direct explanation for why common land is in better condition. It simply contrasts the distribution of costs and benefits between private and common land.

(B) The cost in reduced land quality that is attributable to any individual user is less easily measured with common land than it is with private land.

• This option suggests that it is more difficult to measure the specific costs of overuse on common land. However, it does not directly explain why the common land is in better condition.

(C) An individual who overuses common grazing land might be able to achieve higher returns than other users can, with the result that he or she would obtain a competitive advantage.

• This option suggests that there may be an incentive for individuals to overuse common land in order to gain a competitive advantage. While this provides a possible explanation for overuse, it does not address why the common land is actually in better condition.

(D) If one user of common land overuses it even slightly, the other users are likely to do so even more, with the consequence that the costs to each user outweigh the benefits.

• This option aligns with Hardin's argument and provides a compelling explanation for the result of the study. If one user overuses the common land, it can trigger a "tragedy of the commons" scenario where other users feel compelled to overuse it even more, leading to costs outweighing the benefits. This can result in the common land being less carefully used. However, the study shows that the common land is in better condition, suggesting that this scenario did not occur.

(E) There are more acres of grazing land held privately than there are held in common.

• This option provides information about the quantity of private and common grazing land but does not directly explain why the common land is in better condition.

Based on the analysis, option (D) provides the most reasonable explanation for the study's results. If users of common land are aware that overuse leads to costs outweighing the benefits, they would be more cautious in their usage, resulting in the common land being in better condition.

There was a problem with IVs at this hospital. The government thought they isolated the cause—high concentrations of sodium & potassium—and the hospital took care of that. Nevertheless, the overall problem remains. This is a paradox. We need something else that would cause patients as this particular hospital to have a higher than normal rate of health complications from IV therapy.

(D) is the credited answer. If this hospital has more old folks, and old folks are more likely to have health complications from IV therapy, this would completely explain why this particular hospital has higher rates.

(A) is irrelevant: how many legal documents had to be processed in one way or another is not going to have any effect on how many patients have health complications from IV therapy.

(B) is irrelevant. The hospital lowered the sodium and potassium to "correct levels," so concentrations below baseline level are not the issue here.

(C) is irrelevant. This statement concerns folks who have completed their course of IV therapy, whereas this paradox to be resolved concerns folks who get complications during their IV therapy.

(E) is ambiguous. Some patients, hearing this news chose to go elsewhere. What does this imply for the rate of health complications among patients receiving IV therapy? That's unclear. Were the patients who still came to this hospital, on average, in better or worse health than the pool that typically would have come? Were there any commonalities among the health conditions of the folks who chose not to come to this hospital? We don't know. It's possible that, if we had more information, this statement could be relevant, but in the absence of clarification, this doesn't explain anything.

Let's analyze each answer choice and see which one provides the most plausible explanation for the domestic jumbo-jet manufacturer's decision to raise the issue of national security:

(A) When airlines order new jumbo jets, they provide a large amount of work for aircraft manufacturers.

• This statement suggests that the domestic manufacturer may have raised the issue of national security to ensure that airlines continue ordering jumbo jets from them, thus maintaining a steady stream of work. However, while this explanation addresses the manufacturer's motivation, it doesn't directly connect to the national security argument itself. It does not explain why national security was specifically raised as an issue.

(B) The President is not very concerned with the impact of international competition on the domestic jumbo-jet industry.

• This statement implies that the President's lack of concern about international competition might have prompted the domestic manufacturer to raise the issue of national security independently. However, it does not explain why the manufacturer would connect import quotas to national defense. The statement doesn't establish a direct link between the President's stance and the manufacturer's argument.

(C) The manufacturer encountered resistance to public acceptance of import quotas on jumbo jets when it cited other rationales besides the national defense argument.

• This statement provides a strong explanation for the manufacturer's decision to raise the issue of national security. It suggests that the manufacturer faced difficulties in convincing the public to support import quotas using other justifications. Consequently, they decided to bring up the national defense angle as it might resonate more with the public and gain more support for import quotas.

(D) Most of the military's operations do not require the use of jumbo jets.

• This statement does not directly explain why the domestic manufacturer raised the issue of national security. It suggests that the military's operations do not heavily rely on jumbo jets, which weakens the connection between national defense and the import quotas on jumbo jets.

(E) The domestic manufacturer recently received several orders from both airline and military sources, and these orders will allow that firm to compete successfully with its foreign competitors.

• This statement implies that the domestic manufacturer's recent orders from both airlines and the military have put them in a favorable position to compete with foreign manufacturers. While this information highlights the manufacturer's success, it doesn't directly explain their decision to raise the issue of national security.

Among the options provided, option (C) is the most plausible explanation for the domestic jumbo-jet manufacturer's decision to raise the issue of national security. It suggests that the manufacturer faced resistance when using other rationales to support import quotas, leading them to leverage the national defense argument instead. This explanation aligns with the manufacturer's goal of gaining public acceptance and support for their position.

This question presents an apparent contradiction between the increase in full-time, tenured faculty and the perception of increased average class sizes. To resolve this contradiction, we need to identify a statement that explains why the increase in faculty does not directly result in smaller class sizes.

Let's evaluate each answer choice:

(A) A few of the classes at the university have class sizes of 100 students or more, well in excess of the median class size.

• This statement suggests that there are a few outlier classes with very large class sizes. However, it doesn't explain the overall increase in average class size or how the increased faculty numbers relate to this increase. Therefore, it does not resolve the contradiction.

(B) The number of adjunct professors, who teach the majority of classes at the university, has been cut by 25.

• This statement provides a potential explanation for the contradiction. If the number of adjunct professors, who typically handle a significant portion of the teaching load, has been reduced, it could result in increased class sizes despite the increase in full-time faculty. This choice is a strong contender for the correct answer.

(C) Some full-time tenured professors are researchers and do not lecture on a regular basis.

• This statement acknowledges that some full-time tenured professors may not be involved in regular lecturing. While it suggests a possible reason why the increased faculty numbers may not directly translate to smaller class sizes, it doesn't directly address the apparent contradiction. Therefore, it does not resolve the contradiction.

(D) Some classes are led by graduate students who are not full time rather than by full-time, tenured professors.

• This statement introduces the idea that some classes are led by graduate students, which implies that they may have larger class sizes. However, it does not directly explain the contradiction between increased faculty and increased class sizes. Therefore, it does not resolve the contradiction.

(E) Lab and discussion classes, which are often led by teaching assistants, are not included in the calculation of class size.

• This statement suggests that lab and discussion classes, which are commonly smaller in size, are not counted when calculating average class size. While it may provide insight into the calculation methodology, it does not directly resolve the contradiction between increased faculty and increased class sizes. Therefore, it does not resolve the contradiction.

Among the answer choices, (B) is the most suitable option as it provides a direct explanation for the apparent contradiction. By reducing the number of adjunct professors, the university may have increased the teaching load on full-time faculty, resulting in larger class sizes despite the increased faculty numbers.

This question presents an apparent contradiction between the increase in full-time, tenured faculty and the perception of increased average class sizes. To resolve this contradiction, we need to identify a statement that explains why the increase in faculty does not directly result in smaller class sizes.

Let's evaluate each answer choice:

(A) A few of the classes at the university have class sizes of 100 students or more, well in excess of the median class size.

• This statement suggests that there are a few outlier classes with very large class sizes. However, it doesn't explain the overall increase in average class size or how the increased faculty numbers relate to this increase. Therefore, it does not resolve the contradiction.

(B) The number of adjunct professors, who teach the majority of classes at the university, has been cut by 25.

• This statement provides a potential explanation for the contradiction. If the number of adjunct professors, who typically handle a significant portion of the teaching load, has been reduced, it could result in increased class sizes despite the increase in full-time faculty. This choice is a strong contender for the correct answer.

(C) Some full-time tenured professors are researchers and do not lecture on a regular basis.

• This statement acknowledges that some full-time tenured professors may not be involved in regular lecturing. While it suggests a possible reason why the increased faculty numbers may not directly translate to smaller class sizes, it doesn't directly address the apparent contradiction. Therefore, it does not resolve the contradiction.

(D) Some classes are led by graduate students who are not full time rather than by full-time, tenured professors.

• This statement introduces the idea that some classes are led by graduate students, which implies that they may have larger class sizes. However, it does not directly explain the contradiction between increased faculty and increased class sizes. Therefore, it does not resolve the contradiction.

(E) Lab and discussion classes, which are often led by teaching assistants, are not included in the calculation of class size.

• This statement suggests that lab and discussion classes, which are commonly smaller in size, are not counted when calculating average class size. While it may provide insight into the calculation methodology, it does not directly resolve the contradiction between increased faculty and increased class sizes. Therefore, it does not resolve the contradiction.

Among the answer choices, (B) is the most suitable option as it provides a direct explanation for the apparent contradiction. By reducing the number of adjunct professors, the university may have increased the teaching load on full-time faculty, resulting in larger class sizes despite the increased faculty numbers.