- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:56 pm
#36340
Complete Question Explanation
Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (D)
The paradox presented here is as follows: In spite of the fact electric bug zappers are very good at
getting rid of an area’s flying insects by attracting them to the zappers’ lights, most experts advise
using birds to eat the insects, or spraying insecticide, rather than using the electric zappers to get rid
of the pests.
The question stem that follows is a Resolve the Paradox question, meaning that the correct answer
choice will provide a premise that is consistent with the seemingly contradictory facts presented
in the stimulus. Specifically, the question asks for the answer choice that best explains the experts’
recommendation, so the correct answer should explain why experts consider birds and insecticides
preferable to electric zappers, in spite of the fact that the zappers are effective. The right choice will
most likely provide some previously unmentioned detriment associated with the electric zappers,
or some additional advantage associated with the alternatives mentioned (insect-eating birds and
insecticide sprays).
Answer choice (A): The information provided here speaks to the fact that with some effort, the
recommended insect-eating birds will move anywhere. While this does support the notion that the
birds might be a viable option, it does not explain why the birds or insecticides would be advised for
use by experts instead of the electric bug zappers (considering some of the hassles associated with
the use of insect-eating birds, according to this choice—such birds need to be provided with food,
water, and birdhouses (or “nesting boxes), which would seem to make the bird option relatively less
appealing, this choice actually broadens the paradox). Regardless, since this choice does not resolve
the paradox presented in the stimulus, it cannot be the right answer to this Resolve the Paradox
question.
Answer choice (B): This choice provides a comparison between electric bug zappers’ effectiveness
against mosquitoes, and the zappers’ effectiveness against other insect pests. Since it provides no
comparison between the zappers and the methods that are advised in their stead, this choice would
play no role in explaining expert recommendations to use bug-eating birds and insecticides rather
than electric zappers.
Answer choice (C): This choice provides a totally irrelevant comparison—between the energy
use and light emission of electric zappers, and the energy use and light emission of standard
outside lights. Since this comparison in no way explains the experts’ recommendation that birds or
insecticides be used, this choice should be eliminated from contention.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice—as prephrased in the discussion of the
stimulus, this choice offers a previously unmentioned disadvantage associated with the electric bug
zappers; if the zappers are more deadly to beneficial insects, and less harmful to pests, than either
insect-eating birds or insecticide sprays, that would explain the experts’ general preference for either
of the two suggested alternatives over zappers.
Answer choice (E): There are at least a couple of problems with this answer choice. First of all,
these are merely claims from the developers. Second, these claims do not explain the advantage of
insecticides, because zappers also contain no harmful chemicals.
Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (D)
The paradox presented here is as follows: In spite of the fact electric bug zappers are very good at
getting rid of an area’s flying insects by attracting them to the zappers’ lights, most experts advise
using birds to eat the insects, or spraying insecticide, rather than using the electric zappers to get rid
of the pests.
The question stem that follows is a Resolve the Paradox question, meaning that the correct answer
choice will provide a premise that is consistent with the seemingly contradictory facts presented
in the stimulus. Specifically, the question asks for the answer choice that best explains the experts’
recommendation, so the correct answer should explain why experts consider birds and insecticides
preferable to electric zappers, in spite of the fact that the zappers are effective. The right choice will
most likely provide some previously unmentioned detriment associated with the electric zappers,
or some additional advantage associated with the alternatives mentioned (insect-eating birds and
insecticide sprays).
Answer choice (A): The information provided here speaks to the fact that with some effort, the
recommended insect-eating birds will move anywhere. While this does support the notion that the
birds might be a viable option, it does not explain why the birds or insecticides would be advised for
use by experts instead of the electric bug zappers (considering some of the hassles associated with
the use of insect-eating birds, according to this choice—such birds need to be provided with food,
water, and birdhouses (or “nesting boxes), which would seem to make the bird option relatively less
appealing, this choice actually broadens the paradox). Regardless, since this choice does not resolve
the paradox presented in the stimulus, it cannot be the right answer to this Resolve the Paradox
question.
Answer choice (B): This choice provides a comparison between electric bug zappers’ effectiveness
against mosquitoes, and the zappers’ effectiveness against other insect pests. Since it provides no
comparison between the zappers and the methods that are advised in their stead, this choice would
play no role in explaining expert recommendations to use bug-eating birds and insecticides rather
than electric zappers.
Answer choice (C): This choice provides a totally irrelevant comparison—between the energy
use and light emission of electric zappers, and the energy use and light emission of standard
outside lights. Since this comparison in no way explains the experts’ recommendation that birds or
insecticides be used, this choice should be eliminated from contention.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice—as prephrased in the discussion of the
stimulus, this choice offers a previously unmentioned disadvantage associated with the electric bug
zappers; if the zappers are more deadly to beneficial insects, and less harmful to pests, than either
insect-eating birds or insecticide sprays, that would explain the experts’ general preference for either
of the two suggested alternatives over zappers.
Answer choice (E): There are at least a couple of problems with this answer choice. First of all,
these are merely claims from the developers. Second, these claims do not explain the advantage of
insecticides, because zappers also contain no harmful chemicals.