#24 - A survey of a city’s concertgoers found that almost

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

Here, the stimulus does not contain an argument. Instead, it presents a surprising situation. Despite the fact that nearly all of the city’s concertgoers are dissatisfied with the local concert hall—given that a large majority of them would prefer wider seats and better acoustics, which the hall cannot feasibly be modified to provide—most of them do not want to tear down the hall and replace it with a new concert hall that has the wider seats and better acoustics they would prefer.

Based on the contents and structure of the stimulus, it is no surprise to learn that this is a Resolve the Paradox question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will tell us what caused the surprising situation to occur. In other words, it will tell us why it is that the city’s concertgoers oppose tearing down the existing concert hall, even though they are dissatisfied with it and it cannot be modified to meet their preferences. Avoid the temptation to be creative and come up with various scenarios that would solve the mystery. Simply move to the answer choices on the lookout for one that describes something that would cause the concertgoers to oppose tearing down the existing concert hall.

Answer choice (A): The fact that the group sponsoring the survey had a specific viewpoint does not explain why the concertgoers who responded to the survey oppose tearing down the concert hall. To think that this would cause the concertgoers to oppose tearing down the concert hall, we would have to assume that nearly all of them opposed tearing down the hall because the group sponsoring the survey wanted to tear it down.

Answer choice (B): It is not clear what it means to be in the “vicinity” of the concert hall, or why those people in the vicinity of the concert hall do not want it to be torn down. So, this answer choice does not help to resolve the paradox.

Answer choice (C): Here, we have reason to think that the construction industry would want to tear down and rebuild the concert hall rather than renovating it, but our paradox involves the apparently contradictory views of the concertgoers, not the preferences of the construction industry.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice because it tells us something that would cause the concertgoers to oppose tearing down the concert hall. Since there is a plan under consideration to build a new concert hall, while converting the existing concert hall into a public auditorium, there is no need to tear down the existing hall. Because the plan is “well-publicized,” we can assume that the concertgoers would know about this plan. So, what caused the concertgoers to oppose tearing down the concert hall is their knowledge that such an action was not necessary to get a concert hall that meets their preferences.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice actually worsens the confusion about why the concertgoers oppose tearing down the existing concert hall, because we would assume that they would be in favor of an action that would bring many popular singers and musicians to the city.

[lrogue]

my practice test says that the correct answer is A

[Dave Killoran]

my practice test says that the correct answer is A

I think you are looking at the wrong section, perhaps? I'm looking at the test and our score analyzer, and both show D as the correct answer.

Does that help? Thanks!

[jennie]

I don't find D convincing. Building a new concert hall doesn't guarantee that the new concert hall will meet their needs.

A is more convincing because since the respondents know the survey was sponsored by a group that advocates replacing the existing concert hall, the group might use the survey results for that cause. And if the respondents don't want the hall to be torn down, they must express their objection in the survey.

[Adam Tyson]

I see where you're coming from, jennie, but the problem with that is that we still don't understand why the respondents don't want the concert hall to be torn down. That's the paradox we need to resolve here - the respondents don't like it the way it is, and they know it cannot be renovated, but they still want to keep it. What could explain that apparent contradiction? Answer A might give us some reason to suspect some bias in their answers, but that bias could run either way. Maybe they would be more inclined to suggest tearing it down, or maybe less so, depending on what their biases are. So answer A still leaves us without a resolution. Why leave the building as it is if it isn't satisfactory as a concert hall? Why not tear it down and build something that is more satisfactory?

Answer D gives us a potential explanation. Convert the current building to an auditorium rather than tearing it down, and build a new concert hall. That sounds like a win-win! If the plan has been well publicized, our respondents probably know about it, so they may be predisposed to that plan as getting them a better concert hall (one would hope!) AND an auditorium, and it would make tearing the current building down seem foolish by contrast. While it certainly doesn't guarantee their satisfaction, it at least helps us to understand why they might oppose tearing down the old one, and that's all we need to do here, just help to explain the apparently contradictory survey results.

That's the key here, and might help you feel better about answer D: we don't need any guarantees, just help, much like the answer to a Strengthen question doesn't have to justify the conclusion and the answer to a Weaken question doesn't have to disprove the conclusion. The standard is lower here than that, and D meets that lower standard nicely, while A doesn't help at all.

[willmcchez]

I selected B as the correct answer. I see why D is correct, but I couldn't quite figure out by B isn't.

Then I looked at it and I see that the stimulus concerns a survey of a city's "concertgoers" while B concerns itself with "most of the people who live in the vicinity." Would this be enough to eliminate B? People could live in the vicinity but aren't concertgoers (thus eliminating them from participation in the survey).

[HowardQ]

Hi,

I seriously don't understand this answer. I would be perfectly fine with building a new concert hall nearby, and that wouldn't give me any inconvenience, so there is no reason to oppose it, and a new auditorium is even better or at least irrelevant. E presents a better answer since it states a more popular singer will replace the current concerts. Since the population that's surveyed are all regular concert-goers, they for sure don't want to miss their concert. A singer popular or not certainly doesn't affect a specific group of people that their desired entertainment is being replaced. I noticed not many people selected this answer, why am I wrong?

Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

You might be onto something, willmcchez , but there's another problem with that answer, and that is that it tells us nothing about why they feel that way. They say that the current concert hall is inadequate, with seats too narrow and acoustics not as good as they want. Answer B tells us that the folks who live nearby don't want it torn down, but it doesn't give us any reason to say "oh, okay, now I understand why that is." That's what we want from a Resolve answer - an "aha, I get it" reaction.

We have the same problem with answer E, HowardQ. If a new concert hall would attract more popular singers, then why don't people want to tear down the old one and build a new one to bring in those popular acts? Where's the "aha" moment from this answer? This answer makes the paradox even more confusing, because there is even more reason to tear down and rebuild, and yet the residents don't want to do that. Why not?

Answer D gives us new info that should make us go "oh, okay, now I understand!" If there is a well-publicized plan to do something OTHER than tear it down and rebuild, then perhaps people would prefer to go with that plan instead? They get a new, better concert hall AND they get a renovated public auditorium too. Maybe they see that plan as preferable to just tearing down and rebuilding? That's what we need to see in a good Resolve answer - something that makes us say "oh, yeah, now it makes sense!"

[ShannonOh22]

D is so arbitrary...how is that answer supposed to bring us to an "aha" moment? B can be defended by the fact that maybe people who live around the concert hall don't want it to be torn down because they don't want to deal with the headache of lengthy construction. We all know what "vicinity" means...I don't think it's fair to say B should be eliminated because "we're not sure what they mean by 'in the vicinity of the existing concert hall'"....yes we do. They mean in the vicinity. Around the existing concert hall. In the same neighborhood....close enough to hear construction. Near enough to it that they would be affected by a massive building being torn to the ground.

I know Resolve Questions allow for new information to be introduced, but D seems wayyyy too liberal with its assumptions, and also doesn't answer any questions about the issue with tearing down the existing concert hall. We have no indication that the people in the town want a public auditorium. Where did that come from? And why would they be fine with a new concert hall "nearby"? To argue that "vicinity" is too vague, would "nearby" not fall under exactly the same category?

Is there another explanation for this answer that I can try to make some actual sense of?

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Shannon! Resolve the Paradox questions generally present two ideas that appear to oppose each other. We find ourselves asking, how can both of these things be true? We want to find an answer choice that helps to relieve the tension between the two ideas. So a good Resolve the Paradox answer choice doesn't just address one idea, but seeks to address the tension between the two ideas. If an answer choice leaves you saying, "Ok, I guess that further explains one of the ideas, but it doesn't really address why the two ideas can coexist," then it's likely wrong. It's like when you have a "split" in bowling - you're not just trying to knock down one of the two pins, instead you want to aim for the space between the two so that you can knock them both down.

Answer choice (B) here is (if you'll work with my analogy for one more second), just aiming for one of the pins. I agree with you that it's trying to explain why people didn't vote to tear it down. But it doesn't address the tension between the two ideas of 1) wanting a better concert hall and 2) not wanting to tear it down. It's solely a further explanation of the latter. It offers a further look at the people who don't want to tear it down, but it doesn't tell us why that overcomes the desire for a better concert hall.

Answer choice (D), on the other hand, answers the question: how can the people strongly desire a new hall without wanting to tear it down? (D) tells us that they don't want to tear down the hall because there's an even better option! There is an plan in place where the hall isn't torn down - it's instead converted into another public facility, and meanwhile the concert hall of their dreams is built nearby. Answer choice (D) addresses the tension between the two competing ideas, like a good Resolve the Paradox question should. Hope that helps!