#13- The highest mountain ranges are formed by geological

[Sherry001]

Hello ;
Wow. So very difficult ! I am about to cry . I was sure D was the right answer . How is it A ? I usually really like resolve the paradox questions. After this one I may have changed my mind. I realize now , that maybe there is more than one paradox going on here ? One being why these mountains are still standing , and the other why these precipitation is present in certain areas: but I only realized this possibility after 40 mins, clearly I don't have that much time for something like this.

So what's going on ? Is it really possible that there are more than one paradox going on? If so, why didn't t he questions ask me to explain the precipitation paradox ( then I would have chosen A) ?!

This is how I saw this ! This is a resolve the paradox question: and the conflict we need to solve is how the erosive forces of wind are to wear the highest mountains down YET the tallest mountains are found where these erosive forces are most prevalent.



A) why do we care how these precipitation is formed ? I wanna know why these mountains haven't dropped ! - if this answer beat me in the face I wouldn't have realized it as the correct choice.

B) confuses the paradox even further,if this were the case they all should've fallen .

C) how some other mountains are formed is of no concern to me . All I wanna know is why they haven't dropped !

D) this looked okay to me, maybe the tall mountains haven't been hit hard enough yet ?

E) doesn't explain anything.

Thank you
Sherry

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Sherry,

The paradox, as so succinctly put it, is this: wind and rain wear down the highest mountains ranges, and yet that's exactly where you'll find the most wind and rain. If you think about it, it's not really a paradox: it's just a coincidence that needs to be explained. Well, if (A) is true, then the elevation of these mountains is the very reason why you find extreme wind and precipitation there:

Elevation (cause) Wind/Rain (effect)

This explains the paradox outlined in the stimulus and is therefore reconciles the apparent conflict. Now, you're asking,

I wanna know why these mountains haven't dropped !

.

Good question! The mountains will probably get eroded over time... maybe after millennia the Earth will be as flat as a pancake. But as of now, answer choice (A) provides a reasonably good explanation as to why we're observing the coincidence described in the stimulus.

Not sure why you found (D) to be attractive. The fact that the erosive forces are not constant does not mean much. The fact is, the highest mountain ranges are experiencing extreme erosive forces right now. Just because they didn't always experience these forces at the same level of intensity doesn't matter.

Hope this helps!

[Sherry001]

I love your explanations ! Thank you so much


Sherry

[bk1111]

Hi, how relevant is the first part of this stimulus? I feel like I got distracted trying to understand how that relates to the stimulus. I ended up selecting E. After reading the explanation above, I understand why A is correct. Can someone explain E?

[Adam Tyson]

The first sentence in the stimulus, which explains how the highest mountain ranges are formed, turns out to be irrelevant to both the paradox and to the correct answer. The role it plays on the test, however, is to do to students exactly what it did to you - distract, confuse, misdirect. Several wrong answers tie back to something about the geological forces, and those are meant to divert your eye to the less important aspects of the stimulus, like a magician's sleight-of-hand trick.

Answer E doesn't resolve anything, and in fact compounds the paradox. If the crust sinks over time, why are these ranges still among the highest? But wait - that sinking occurs BECAUSE they are the highest, so maybe they HAVE to be the highest in order to have that sinking? The argument ends up going around in circles and getting us nowhere. Ultimately, since E doesn't tell us anything about why those ranges are the highest when they are surrounded by the most erosive forces and should, therefore, be inexorably worn down. E fails to address anything about the "why" of it all - why are these two seemingly contradictory statements both true? What caused this? How can this be? That's what we need in a Resolve answer, and E doesn't provide any answers, only more questions.

Ponder that and let us know if it resolves anything for you!

[akanshalsat]

Is D also wrong b/c it only talks about precipitation, but the erosive conditions are made of wind as well so even if precipitation stops for a couple years, wind could still be continuing on eroding the mountains? I got A right.

[Adam Tyson]

It's not a problem that the answer doesn't mention wind, akanshalsat. The problem is that it doesn't give us enough info to make us say "oh, of course, NOW I get it!" That's the reaction we should have to the correct answer to a Resolve the Paradox question. Does this answer tell us why the highest ranges also have the most prevalent erosive forces? So the rain varies over time at any mountain range, whether highest or lowest or in between. But why are the forces most prevalent at the highest ranges? It's not the absence of wind that makes D a loser, but the absence of a resolution to our mystery.

[smtq123]

Can someone please explain why B is not correct.

Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

If anything, smtq123, answer B makes things worse rather than resolving anything, because if those highest peaks have less erosion-reducing vegetation, why haven't they eroded and become shorter? That's the problem here - these places that are the highest seem like maybe they shouldn't be the highest. It sounds like they should have eroded! It would have been much more helpful if these highest peaks had the MOST such vegetation, because that might explain why they are the highest peaks despite the high levels of erosive forces.

But ultimately, the level of vegetation does nothing to explain why these places have the highest levels of erosive forces. Why are the forces higher here? That's what we really need to explain, and answer A does just that.

[jralvendia]

After considering the question and argument I was down to 2 contenders A and D while I see why A is correct I do not see why D is incorrect.

My logic to D and its implication to the question is as follows: the conclusion states -

Thus, such colonies will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on Earth relieved.

D- It overlooks the possibility that colonies on the Moon might themselves quickly become overcrowded.

AC is implying to me that if the moon becomes overcrowded the benefits of settling the moon (relieving severe overcrowding on earth) will be void, therefore the conclusion overlooks this possibility is a flaw.

I could see that possibly D is describing something that would weaken the argument but not necessarily have to be a flaw in the authors argument, if that is the case, I guess it would help explain why D is wrong, thank you!