#12 - The only effective check on grass and brush fires is

[dimi.wassef@yahoo.com]

Ah, yes, it would actually cause more financial damage! It’s a mistake reversal?

[Robert Carroll]

dimi.wassef,

A Mistaken Reversal is a conditional flaw. This answer choice is just, if anything, opposite and does nothing to explain the paradox.

Robert Carroll

[goingslow]

Hi! I have an additional question for answer choice (B).

Would it be reasonable to say that “areas subject to grass and brush fires” are arid areas, and “areas where they are few such fires” get a lot of rainfall? If so, then arid areas are less densely populated than moist areas. So arid areas would suffer less financial damage. What's wrong with my line of reasoning?

Thank you so much for any thoughts you may have!

[ange.li6778]

Let me try to address your question, goingslow, and Powerscore staff please correct me if I'm wrong!

The way I understand it, the stimulus is asking why differences in weather (drought vs normal rainfall) causes different amounts of damage in a given area. How come there's less financial damage in that area during periods when there should be more fires? B falls short of answering that question because it's talking about different areas, so it doesn't address the paradox of weather in the stimulus.

Additionally, so what if areas subject to grass and brush fires tend to be less densely populated? We would have to assume that "less densely populated" means "less financial damage," which is a little dicey. What if an area is less populated but is home to a huge industrial farm with expensive equipment, which results in more financial damage due to fire than a more populated area like a typical suburb?

In contrast, C addresses why there might be more financial damage when there are less fires in a given area -- less fires, less vegetation burned, therefore more material to burn and cause more damage when fires do happen.

[Adam Tyson]

Good explanation, ange.li6778! Goingslow, I hope this answers the question for you. We should not assume that areas subject to grass and brush fires are arid areas. They could just as easily be regions with plenty of rain under normal circumstances, and the issue is just that they get more fires when it's dry, but less financial loss when it has been dry for a long time. They may still get plenty of fires, but they aren't as big and bad. Perhaps because when there has been a drought there is less fuel for the fires?

[mkarimi73]

hershey,

I think you are on the right track. If areas subject to brush fires are less densely populated, they might have less for a fire to destroy - but they'd have less for a fire to destroy all the time. So the stimulus's paradox, where less damage is caused when there's a severe drought, is left unexplained - those areas that are less densely populated don't become that way after a drought.

Essentially, the paradox is that the same area is damaged less when a fire occurs during a severe drought. Facts about an area that don't change when the weather and climate conditions change (like the density of population) can't explain that paradox.

Robert Carroll

So, in other words, (B) would require additional assumptions to the stimulus that is not stated for it to work? I ask this question to better understand what is allowed on Paradox questions and what isn't allowed. (Or rather, patterns that they like to choose for wrong answer choices ) Outside information that is powerful in resolving the Paradox are, of course, allowed, especially if it resolves the two conflicting facts/premises. An answer choice like (B) seems to trip me up a lot, and I tend to keep pausing and pausing, reading it over and over again to see if it could work, when (C) is clearly a better, more powerful answer choice. What do I do in this scenario? It seems obvious to pick (C) and move on. But I am unfortunately a very detail-oriented person, so I have to know why (B) can be safely eliminated without further glance. (Maybe this is my issue on Logical Reasoning in general!)

[Luke Haqq]

Hi mkarimi73!

You ask,

So, in other words, (B) would require additional assumptions to the stimulus that is not stated for it to work? I ask this question to better understand what is allowed on Paradox questions and what isn't allowed.

Requiring additional assumptions, as you describe it, could be one way thinking about why answer choice (B) is incorrect. But more to the point for the type of question, it's incorrect because it doesn't ultimately ease the tension underlying the stimulus. If answer choice (B) were true, if "areas subject to grass and brush fires tend to be less densely populated than areas where there are few such fires," that doesn't explain why there is less financial damage from grass and brush fires during droughts even though droughts make these types of fires more frequent. This answer choice connects grass and brush fires to financial damage, but it doesn't resolve the discrepancy that there is less financial damage during droughts versus periods of normal rainfall in which these fires are less frequent.

Answer choice (C) resolves the two seemingly discrepant points in the stimulus, by connecting the drought to something that prevents a certain type of fire ("unusually large, hard to control" grass and brush fire) from occurring.

To your broader question about testing strategy, I can offer some suggestions: (1) Remember that test makers often place the correct answer choice just below attractive contenders, like in this question. (2) Incorrect answer choices on resolve the paradox questions will often unpack one side of the paradox without actually connecting it to the other, as with (B). (3) If you're pausing and re-reading a single answer choice multiple times, set a general goal of making sure to read all the answer choices on each logical reasoning question--in many cases, you'll arrive at what you're certain is the right answer before getting through all of them and might need to move on for the sake of time, but it is still helpful to set the general default goal of skimming all the answer choices before deciding. (4) You mention having "to know why (B) can be safely eliminated"--in resolve the paradox and other question types, a worthwhile strategy is to be able to point with your pencil/cursor/finger to particular language in the stimulus that supports the answer choice. This physical process of pointing back to the stimulus could help you get away from reading and re-reading the same answer choice. (5) You'd then either be unable to point to language to support (B), or if it still seemed plausible, then you could at least leave a mark next to it as a contender and move on to other answer choices.

[cgleeson]

Hi mkarimi73!

You ask,

So, in other words, (B) would require additional assumptions to the stimulus that is not stated for it to work? I ask this question to better understand what is allowed on Paradox questions and what isn't allowed.

Requiring additional assumptions, as you describe it, could be one way thinking about why answer choice (B) is incorrect. But more to the point for the type of question, it's incorrect because it doesn't ultimately ease the tension underlying the stimulus. If answer choice (B) were true, if "areas subject to grass and brush fires tend to be less densely populated than areas where there are few such fires," that doesn't explain why there is less financial damage from grass and brush fires during droughts even though droughts make these types of fires more frequent. This answer choice connects grass and brush fires to financial damage, but it doesn't resolve the discrepancy that there is less financial damage during droughts versus periods of normal rainfall in which these fires are less frequent.

Answer choice (C) resolves the two seemingly discrepant points in the stimulus, by connecting the drought to something that prevents a certain type of fire ("unusually large, hard to control" grass and brush fire) from occurring.

To your broader question about testing strategy, I can offer some suggestions: (1) Remember that test makers often place the correct answer choice just below attractive contenders, like in this question. (2) Incorrect answer choices on resolve the paradox questions will often unpack one side of the paradox without actually connecting it to the other, as with (B). (3) If you're pausing and re-reading a single answer choice multiple times, set a general goal of making sure to read all the answer choices on each logical reasoning question--in many cases, you'll arrive at what you're certain is the right answer before getting through all of them and might need to move on for the sake of time, but it is still helpful to set the general default goal of skimming all the answer choices before deciding. (4) You mention having "to know why (B) can be safely eliminated"--in resolve the paradox and other question types, a worthwhile strategy is to be able to point with your pencil/cursor/finger to particular language in the stimulus that supports the answer choice. This physical process of pointing back to the stimulus could help you get away from reading and re-reading the same answer choice. (5) You'd then either be unable to point to language to support (B), or if it still seemed plausible, then you could at least leave a mark next to it as a contender and move on to other answer choices.

Hi,
Just for clarification....on B they are asking you to assume that densely populated areas are the only areas that can suffer financial damage from the fires. That of course is an assumption that cannot be made...or at least I can't see how. C explains the fuel for the fire, large fire = more damage = more financial costs.
Thanks,
Chris

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Chris!

My above comments were just validating that a hypothetical assumption posed by a student made sense, which seems similar to what you are also asking in terms of clarification. Answer choice (B) states, "Areas subject to grass and brush fires tend to be less densely populated than areas where there are few such fires." You indicate that your interpretation of (B) is that "they are asking you to assume that densely populated areas are the only areas that can suffer financial damage from the fires." The word "only" seems a bit stronger than what is reflected in answer choice (B), which isn't stated in absolute terms but rather in terms of what "tends to" be the case. If answer choice (B) were true, that wouldn't resolve the paradox of droughts producing more fires but less financial damage.

With respect to answer choice (C), you mention, "C explains the fuel for the fire, large fire = more damage = more financial costs." You are right in pointing out that (C) mentions "unusually large, hard-to-control fires," though drought also seems to be an important element. An explanation of why (C) is correct, given the question type, needs to allow for both aspects of the paradox to be true. Here, one aspect is that droughts are associated with more fires, and the other aspect is that they are associated with less financial damage. Answer choice (C) provides a unique phenomenon (unusually large, hard-to-control fires), which seem costly by virtue of their description and additionally are less present in periods of drought when there is less vegetation for them to consume.

[cgleeson]

Hey Luke....Thank you so much Paradox questions can throw me for a loop sometimes.

Hi Chris!

My above comments were just validating that a hypothetical assumption posed by a student made sense, which seems similar to what you are also asking in terms of clarification. Answer choice (B) states, "Areas subject to grass and brush fires tend to be less densely populated than areas where there are few such fires." You indicate that your interpretation of (B) is that "they are asking you to assume that densely populated areas are the only areas that can suffer financial damage from the fires." The word "only" seems a bit stronger than what is reflected in answer choice (B), which isn't stated in absolute terms but rather in terms of what "tends to" be the case. If answer choice (B) were true, that wouldn't resolve the paradox of droughts producing more fires but less financial damage.

With respect to answer choice (C), you mention, "C explains the fuel for the fire, large fire = more damage = more financial costs." You are right in pointing out that (C) mentions "unusually large, hard-to-control fires," though drought also seems to be an important element. An explanation of why (C) is correct, given the question type, needs to allow for both aspects of the paradox to be true. Here, one aspect is that droughts are associated with more fires, and the other aspect is that they are associated with less financial damage. Answer choice (C) provides a unique phenomenon (unusually large, hard-to-control fires), which seem costly by virtue of their description and additionally are less present in periods of drought when there is less vegetation for them to consume.