LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8950
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#24499
Complete Question Explanation

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

In this stimulus two seemingly contradictory facts are presented: One, “proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered ‘extractable’” are at the same level as ten years ago; Two, no new fields “of any consequence” have been discovered and consumption of “domestically produced oil has increased.” Pay close attention to the “extractable” definition in the dashes; the LSAT writers include this peripheral information for a reason. It is the key to the answer. Basically, there are the same fields that have the same amount of oil, but consumption has increased over ten years. We need to find an answer that explains how both of these facts can be true.

Answer Choice (A): This answer choice introduces the idea of “imported oil,” and may sound true and apropos to the current economy. However, it does not reconcile the apparent paradox, which deals exclusively with domestic oil. This answer is not relevant.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice deals with the second statement in the stimulus and qualifies it somewhat, but does not change it significantly. Even if “conservation measures” have “lowered the rate of growth,” there is still growth and the paradox of the stimulus still is not resolved.

Answer Choice (C): This answer choice is entirely unrelated. It may explain why no new fields have been discovered, but it does not address the paradox in any way. This is a politically correct answer because it introduces “environmental concerns;” do not be tempted.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice introduces the idea of the price of oil. If we assume this to be true, it does not explain the paradox. This may explain why consumption has increased, but not how the reserves have remained the same over ten years.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. It demonstrates the importance of a single word, “extractable,” in the stimulus. Although no new fields have been discovered, the old fields have been made to produce more oil. This explains how the oil reserves can match the level from ten years ago despite the consumption increase.
 biskam
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: Aug 18, 2017
|
#40109
I struggled with the wording of E. The stimulus to me says in the first sentence that amount considered extractable (the definition of proven oil reserves) has been the same since 10 years ago. Yet E says the exact opposite. So I felt less comfortable choosing it

Thank you!
 biskam
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: Aug 18, 2017
|
#40110
Although no new fields have been discovered, the old fields have been made to produce more oil. This explains how the oil reserves can match the level from ten years ago despite the consumption increase.

Ah wait, I might understand this better now. If the amount considered extractable increased in ten years, then the increased consumption might have used up all that "newly discovered extractable oil" to the point that the levels are equal to what the were ten years ago... we just can't see the record of that in the reserves because the levels are the same.
 nicholaspavic
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 271
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2017
|
#40139
Hi biskam,

You have definitely keyed in on the right concept here with Answer (E). I think that you have it! Well done! Keep it up!
 whardy21
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: Sep 30, 2018
|
#65201
My answer choice was D and I see why I was wrong. The price of the domestic oil falling substantial over the last decade could or maybe explain the annual increase in consumption. My original thought was if the oil price has fallen substantially, more people would be prone to by oil, which would explain the increase in the consumption of oil. However, answer choice D doesn't address the other part of the paradox where it talks about the oil considered extractable are the same from ten years ago. Answer choice E address both parts of the paradox.
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#65348
Exactly right, whardy21! Only answer E allows there to be just as much extractable oil as there was 10 years earlier, despite some of that oil have been consumed over that period. We must now be able to extract more than we previously could! Answer D tells us why consumption of that oil increased, but does nothing to explain how the amount still considered extractable remains the same. Good work!
 andriana.caban
  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: Jun 23, 2017
|
#73920
Administrator wrote: Answer Choice (A): This answer choice introduces the idea of “imported oil,” and may sound true and apropos to the current economy. However, it does not reconcile the apparent paradox, which deals exclusively with domestic oil. This answer is not relevant.
Hi,

Can someone tell me if my reasoning is correct when eliminating (A): (A) is wrong because it is irrelevant. How does increasing the imported oil level quicker than domestic oil solve this "weird event"? I eliminated (A) because it does not discuss how the amount considered extractable are at the same levels now as they were 10 years ago? I only ask because the reasoning of why (a) is incorrect provided above introduces "imported oil" (which was my prephrase) but focuses on the domestic oil.

Thanks!
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1819
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#73992
Andriana,

That sounds good!

Robert Carroll
 khmpointer@gmail.com
|
#88260
Hi,
I had some trouble connecting the phrase "the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields" to the "proven oil reserves", I chose A as the answer and still am having trouble seeing how imported oil fields are irrelevant to the paradox. I see E is a better choice; but I'm having trouble understanding why A is automatically wrong
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1819
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#88308
khm,

The dashes indicate apposition - the author is simply stipulating that "proven oil reserves" and "the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields" will be used synonymously.

Answer choice (A) does no good because, as the end of the stimulus indicates, the consumption of domestically produced oil has increased. If consumption of imported oil has also increased, then, of course, Americans are using a lot of oil - but they're using more domestic oil than before, yet the proven oil reserves are the same, and no new oil fields have been found. So, domestically, the same oil fields appear to have the same amount of oil in them despite Americans using more of that oil! That's the paradox. That Americans are also using foreign oil does nothing to change the fact in the stimulus that Americans are somehow using more domestic oil too, and yet the oil reserves look like they haven't been depleted. Answer choice (A) leaves the paradoxical part untouched. I'm ok with answer choice (A) being true - it doesn't contradict the stimulus - but it's not helpful to explain anything.

Robert Carroll

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.