#6 - Shortly after the power plant opened and began discharging its wastewater into the river, there

[Tyler1237]

I am having a hard time understanding why C does not explain the decrease in overall number of bass caught. I understand why all the other answer choices explain the this decrease and are wrong, but I don’t see what makes C right. I also can’t really distinguish what makes C so different from A. If there is an increase in the number of anglers fishing for bass, wouldn’t that mean there would eventually be a decrease in the amount of bass available to be caught? My thought process is that more anglers catching bass would lead to more bass being caught leading to less overall bass being available to be caught. I just don’t understand why this doesn’t explain the decrease.

Please let me know if my thought process of more anglers possibly eventually leading to less bass is correct. If it is correct, then what about C makes it not explain the decrease? Could it be the timeline of this happening is too long (considering that the argument starts with “Shortly after the power plant opened”), or maybe because more anglers doesn’t necessarily lead to less bass?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Tyler,

Answer C is actually an opposite answer in that it would actually increase the paradox rather than help explain it. Normally that would be a feature of an incorrect answer for Resolve questions, but since this is a Resolve EXCEPT question, it is the correct answer.

The first important detail to note in the stimulus is the time frame. The stimulus begins "shortly after the power plant opened" (my emphasis), there was a decrease in the number of bass caught by anglers.

All other things being equal, one would expect that if there were more anglers fishing, this would lead to an increase in the number of bass being caught rather than a decrease. I suppose it would be possible that too many anglers fishing could ultimately deplete the supply of bass, but in the meantime, there would have been an increase in the number of bass caught rather than a decrease. Also, the fact that the stimulus involves a river rather than a lake is relevant, as presumably bass swim down the river, so it wouldn't make sense for the anglers in one area to completely deplete the supply of bass, as more bass will appear from upriver. If this were a lake, the explanation of over fishing might make more sense.