LR resolve the paradox

s.grant81

Hey folks, I’m taking the June test and am currently in the dissect stages of understanding each question type. Out of the 13 LR question types, I’m stuck trying to understand the correct info in a resolve question. I’m using powerscore but for some reason, this isn’t sticking with me. It’s the only LR issue I’m having so far. Thoughts?

P.S. For those that are studying 5-8 hours per day for 6+ months, either you’re full of it, or you will emphatically burn out. 15 hours a week is solid until the last month, then 20 should suffice. Probably not even that much is required.

Sg

michelle.zysk99

Fifteen to 20 hours per week, even if its M-F, is only 3+ hours per day. If you prep test that's most of it. I have to go over the previous days issues so that adds another 1-2 hours. I agree you can burn out, and I also know it takes time away from studying for the information to distill and take hold, so 5-8 hours per day may be excessive for some, but I find if I don't drill for more than 3-4 days, I get slower... so I have to build that practice into any daily routine. My opinion is rather than limiting the hours per day, it's better to take 1, maybe 2 days off, if you're burning out or performance is suffering. But some issues just lend themselves to a 5-8 hour day for me.

s.grant81

Do you have any input on the resolve the paradox issue I need mentioned in the main text?

irrelephant_argument

In my mind, the resolve the discrepancy question is somewhat similar to a flawed reasoning question. The argument needs some extra information that proves to be critical to the understanding of the argument. In a flawed reasoning question you are trying to locate information that would completely undermine the argument. In a resolve the paradox question you are looking for the opposite. The correct answer is something, that if applied to the argument, would completely explain how the paradox (conflicting information) is actually not conflicting at all.

In example, here is a paradox used by LSAC: you just had a new gas water heater installed that is energy efficient, but your gas bill actually becomes more expensive over the next months. The information conflicts and presents a paradox. Now you need to find information that would explain why your gas bill went up, even though the new equipment should have made the bill go down. There are many reasons this might be possible. Perhaps the gas company decided to hike its rates, perhaps you have a new roommate that takes hour long hot showers. Both would resolve the conflict.

The trickier part comes when the question asks "all of these answers, if true, resolve the paradox EXCEPT." In this case the answer tends to be something that is simply irrelevant to what is being asked of you. It is also possible that the correct answer extends the gap between the two conflicting pieces of information - In example, what if one of the answer choices says: the new gas water heater uses a smaller percentage of gas. This doesn't help us resolve why the price goes up. In fact, if it is using less gas, then this would add to the paradox. Thus, such an answer choice would not help use resolve the paradox.

Overall, you know that you are looking for a new piece of information that, if added, alters the understanding of the statement. I'm not certain if this info helps or not. I hope it does!

s.grant81

This is a great explanation. The issue I am running into is the some of the questions in my drills have absolutely nothing to do with the information in the stimulus. I know in these, the answers are all treated as facts and the stimulus is suspect, but some answers look so far fetched I move on, only to find they were actually the right ones. I’ll keep plugging away at it.