#6 - The number of tornadoes recorded annually in North

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (E)

As in all Resolve the Paradox questions, this stimulus presents a surprising situation. While experts claim the climatic factors impacting the creation of tornadoes has remained constant, records show that the number of tornadoes recorded every year has more than tripled since 1953. To help resolve this conflict, we want to focus on the difference between the number of tornadoes that occur, and the number that are recorded. After all, if the climatic factors are constant, we would expect the number of tornadoes that occur annually to be constant. Therefore, in our answer choice, we want to find something that addresses why so many more tornadoes are recorded now than in 1953.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice addresses the meteorologist’s knowledge of the climatic factors that cause tornadoes. By saying that the meteorologists did not really understand what caused tornadoes prior to 1953, this answer choice attacks the experts providing data that supports the contention that tornado occurrences have remained constant. Remember though, that you cannot resolve a paradox by attacking the facts; you must take both parts of the paradox as true, and not attack either part. Since this answer choice does not explain how both parts of the paradox can be true, it is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect because the stimulus is about the number of tornadoes, not the strength of the tornadoes. Since this answer choice does not address the numerical discrepancy, it is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): In this answer choice, we only look at a small piece of the time between 1953 and the present. The stimulus focuses on the increase over the entire period, not just the past 5 years. There could have a technological advance 10 years ago that explains the increase in recorded tornadoes, or the increase could have occurred slowly but gradually over the past 50-60 years. This answer choice does not explain how the total number of tornadoes remained constant, while the reported number increased so drastically, it is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): Like answer choice (B), this answer choice addresses the strength of the tornadoes, this time by discussing the physical impact. However, this answer choice still does not address why the number of tornadoes reported would have gone up so much.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This is the only answer choice to explain why the number of tornadoes recorded increased. Notice how this answer choice is consistent with all the facts in the stimulus. If there are more people helping to identify and report tornadoes, it would make sense that the number of tornadoes recorded would increase as well. The overall number of tornadoes can be stable between 1953 and the present, but more are recorded as more people are tracking them.

[Khodi7531]

I chose A over E because I thought E was weak with "many". Now I woulda chose E anyway, but I thought A was getting at something better and was stronger - I believed it to get at how scientists now, as opposed to 1953, understand the factors and by understanding them after 1953, being able to account for more Tornados with these factors.


So what am I missing? Is this answer assuming changes in climatic factors that are opposite from what the premise says and that's why it's incorrect?

[Adam Tyson]

Let's start with identifying the paradox that needs to be resolved here, Khodi7531, and that is that on the one hand, the number of recorded tornadoes is way, way up, while on the other we have scientists telling us that the climate hasn't changed in any way that matters, implying that the actual number of tornadoes hasn't really changed.

So, probably about the same weather we have always had, but recording is way up. Recording is up, not numbers of tornadoes.

Look for an answer that explains why the recorded number might have gone up while the actual number did not. Something that tells us that the recording process changed - specifically, that it has improved (because we are finding more than before).

Answer A clouds that issue. So what if we didn't used to be good at determining what makes a tornado? They still happened, and our knowing why and how changes nothing! We know NOW that the climate is approximately the same as it was THEN, whether we knew it back then or not.

But answer E, if true, helps explain why we are recording more tornadoes then we were back in 1953. We're getting help!

I hope that helped!

[Khodi7531]

Hey Adam...yeah I understood the issue and the importance of "recorded" - I feel like it's a very common error used in LSAT LR.


However, my thought's behind A, although I see why E is correct, was interpreted like this: Since (A) says that the knowledge of climatic factors that cause tornados were not as well known before the time frame than now by scientists, I thought it was getting out, "oh, that's why the reporting has now been more". By now understanding the factors better than before, they are able to record these occurrences more - although the actual occurrences of tornados may be the same.


But...I can see how this is kind of an assumption to make. That by understanding climate factors you would be reporting more...why would I all of a sudden report it more just because i'm more aware of the climate factors that can cause tornados. Is this trying to get at an assumption of, more scientists are now aware and reporting?

If so, I would think this is how you get rid of A. Is that right?

[Robert Carroll]

Khodi,

That sounds correct.

Imagine the situation in Portugal in the 1700s, when there was a terrible, devastating earthquake. Plate tectonics were not known at the time, so the cause of the earthquake was unknown. Did that mean the earthquake wasn't recorded? Of course not. Similarly here, if the science behind tornadoes was not well known, you'd still expect people to notice the tornadoes they saw. So answer choice (A) is just wide of the mark.

Robert Carroll

[Catallus]

I got the right answer (E), but I was wondering why (B) (greater tornado intensity) and (D) (more tornado damage) are not viable explanations. If more property damage/destruction results from tornadoes, would that not explain an increase in tornadoes recorded? That is, I feel that we could interpret (B) and (D) as indicating that tornadoes are more detectable nowadays compared to before—they leave more signs of their presence—even though the number of tornadoes occurring remains the same. For instance, while we might not have noticed a minor tornado occurring in 1953, an intense tornado in the present day might be more difficult to miss, and thus more likely to be reported.

[Dana D]

Hey Cattalus,

Your reasoning for selecting answer choices (B) or (D) is basically a restatement of the correct answer (E) - there is a way that more tornadoes are detected. The difference between these 3 answer choices is that answer (E) directly addresses the fact that more tornadoes are detected, while answer choices (B) and (D) require you to hypothesize and make outside assumptions to say that they might result in increased detected tornadoes.

The question stem asks which answer choice most resolves the paradox, so you were correct to go with answer (E), which most directly achieves this goal.