#11 - Carrots are known to be one of the best sources of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the ParadoxX. The correct answer choice is (C)

The author of this stimulus presents the apparent discrepancy between the growing demand over the last decade for carrots, one of the best sources of natural vitamin A, and the increasing number of vitamin A deficiencies during that same time. This stimulus is followed by a ResolveX question, which means that among the five answer choices, the four incorrect answer choices will provide a resolution to the paradox, and the one correct choice will not.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice resolves the paradox in the stimulus, so it is incorrect. If the population has grown over the past decade, then that provides an alternate explanation for the increasing number of deficiencies (more people more expected deficiency cases).

Answer choice (B): Like incorrect answer choice (A) above, this answer also helps to explain the apparent discrepancy presented in the stimulus. If most of the carrots consumed are in peeled or chopped form, they would provide less vitamins; this would explain the increase in consumption that nonetheless did not help people to ward off vitamin A deficiency.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, because it is the one choice which does not help to resolve the discrepancy described in the stimulus. This choice presents one possible source of the growing demand, but does not help to explain why the number of vitamin A deficiencies has increased. Since this choice explains only one side of the paradox, it does not resolve, and is thus the correct answer choice to this ResolveX question.

Answer choice (D): If those who already consumed plenty of vitamin A were the same people who increased their carrot consumption, this would explain why the benefits have not been spread across the population; these circumstances, would explain the increased carrot consumption that was not able to ward off an increase in vitamin A deficiency. Since this choice does resolve the paradox in the stimulus, it is one of the four wrong answers to this ResolveX question.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice, like incorrect answer choice (D) above, helps to explain the apparent inconsistency in the stimulus, so it is one of four wrong answer choices to this ResolveX question. If weather conditions have made carrots less readily available, then this explains how an increase in demand might not have any effect at all. It wouldn’t matter if everyone wanted carrots—as carrots became scarcer, we might expect deficiencies to increase, regardless of the increasing, but unmet, demand.

[jm51]

Hello,

I'm having a really hard time understanding why (d) resolves the paradox. If those with historically low vitamin A were the only ones consuming carrots, wouldn't that at worst make a small improvement in the rates of vitamin A deficiency? How could the rates possibly decrease?

Just because those who did not have a deficiency aren't consuming the INCREASE doesn't mean they aren't going about as normal eating the same amount of carrots as before that kept them at a normal rate. How can we assume that because they aren't eating the increase in carrots they all of a sudden develop a vitamin A deficiency?

[Ron Gore]

Hi JM!

The issue you're having stems from misreading the answer choice. You're correct, under your version of the answer choice, that it doesn't make any sense. However, let's look at the answer choice a bit more closely.

Answer choice (D) says that consumption has occurred only among those who "have historically had low vitamin A deficiency rates." The people eating the additional carrots do not have the need for additional vitamin A, while those who have a problem with low vitamin A levels are not getting more carrots, i.e., more vitamin A. Because of this, vitamin A deficiency rates are being improved by the increase in demand, and even in the consumption, of carrots, because the people who could be helped, those who need the vitamin A, aren't getting it.

So, again, the only people eating more carrots are those who don't need the vitamin A. While those people who don't have vitamin A deficiency don't suddenly gain a deficiency by eating carrots, those who have a deficiency and actually need the carrots aren't getting it. So, there is at very least no reduction in the number of people with vitamin A deficiency, which can help us understand how the number of people with vitamin A deficiency could increase.

Remember, these answer choices don't necessarily provide the absolute strongest resolution of the paradox. Which just need something that can help to resolve, as does this answer choice.

Best Wishes,

Ron

[kristinaroz93]

"Carrots are known to be one of the best sources of naturally occuring vitamin A.."

For this problem, I cannot seem to understand how to eliminate choice D. Neither the explanation on the online student center nor on this very forum is making any sense to me. Any help would be appreciated.


Thanks in advance!

[Steve Stein]

Hey Kristina,

That's a good question; to quickly review for other students reading along, the paradox presented here is that while demand for carrots (a great source of vitamin A) has increased, strangely there has also been an increase in vitamin A deficiency.

The question provides that all of the answer choices will help resolve this apparent discrepancy except for one, so each of the incorrect answer choices will provide some resolution.

Answer choice (D) provides that carrot consumption has only been increasing among the people who were already ok (those who didn't often suffer much deficiency to begin with). If this is the case, then we would not expect the increase in carrot consumption noted by the author would to help the deficiency rates among the general population.

Note that although this answer choice does not help to explain why deficiency rates have increased (perhaps the population of non-carrot eaters has increased), this choice does help to resolve the apparent discrepancy.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Steve,


Thank you for your explanation! So this is how I interpreted the problem, please correct me at any point if I am wrong. There is a population of those with low vitamin A deficiency out there who are the only ones consuming carrots, and it is not like they can get additional vitamin A deficiency. So then the people who may not know they can develop the problem are not eating the carrots nor anyone else for the matter, and so there is this increase in the # of people diagnosed with the deficiency. My question, I guess, is how can we know there is no way for the deficiency to go away from the people who have it by eating the carrots, could they then become undiagnosed with the condition and thus decrease the number of diagnosed cases, thus not really resolving the paradox?
Or do we ignore the people who have already have it, and just focus on the newcomers to the deficiency (since for some reason people can't be undiagnosed, because it is some kind of life condition)? Is that what you meant by stating "we would not expect the increase in carrot consumption noted by the author would to help the deficiency rates among the general population."
(I am not sure what angle to approach this problem)

Essentially, we are not focusing on people who already have it (since they are already part of the statistics and can't change any outcomes- e.g. they cannot be diagnosed again nor undiagnosed), but rather focus on that there are no prevantitive methods taken by additional people who could be potentially diagnosed in the future, since they are not consuming carrots, and can further contribute to the statistic.

I hope I am making sense here. I await your response =) Sorry for writing so much!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Kristina,

Thanks for your response! I want to make sure we're on the same page: Answer choice (D) refers to people who don't suffer from the deficiency--these are the people who were already getting plenty of vitamin A.

Even if that group were to triple its carrot consumption, that would not likely affect their deficiency rates much, since those rates were already low (they were already getting enough vitamin A to begin with-- give them more carrots and they're still getting enough vitamin A).


...so, even if carrot consumption has increased, if all of those carrots are getting eaten by the people who were already healthy, then we would not expect those extra carrots to have any effect on the rest of the population (those not eating extra carrots).


I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear, and responsive to your question--thanks!

~Steve

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Steve,

Got it, thanks so much! Firstly, I overthought this answer choice to no end. And secondly, I misunderstood low deficiency as still being very problematic for some reason (since low deficiency still meant there was a deficiency in my head). So not as referring to a healthy group of people, but those who suffer from a health issue !

That is where I went wrong, but I understand it all now.

I actually have written down in my notes from class "people who do not need the carrots are eating them, taking away from people that need them". This sentence now makes completely more sense to me after our discussion (since only the healthy people are consuming the carrots and no one else).

(Feeling embarrassed)

Best,

Kristina

[Steve Stein]

Hey Kristina,

Thanks for your response! ...and no reason to be embarrassed! That was definitely a deliberate move on the part of the test makers; they really seem to like double negative concepts such as "lower deficiency rates," because they provide so much potential for confusion! Regardless, I'm glad that was helpful; you seem to be doing quite well!

~Steve

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for responding to me, what you said definately made me feel better. I am glad you think I am doing "quite well", I really hope so =) But sometimes I do overthink things and that gets me into a bit of trouble. I will watch out for those double negatives from now on!


Best,

Kristina