### You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:24

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView
Choices
Curve Question
Difficulty
Psg/Game/S
Difficulty
Explanation
PT16 S2 Q01
+LR
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
A
9%
162
B
81%
168
C
7%
161
D
2%
157
E
2%
160
131
146
160
+Medium 146.82 +SubsectionMedium

This is a Resolve, Reconcile, and Explain Question. We know this because of the question stem: “Most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?”

RRE questions will require an explanation of a conflicting set of facts. Our correct answer choice, when plugged back into the stimulus, will resolve the discrepancy by explaining how the two sides of the apparent conflicting issues actually make sense together. The correct answer will use both sides, though not necessarily explicitly, to explain the conflict. Often, the test will entice you to make naive assumptions about the conflict - don’t fall for it! Your approach should fall under the “this seems wrong because of XYZ, but I can think of a few reasons it could work.”

The first sentence reports on what the city’s CDC says about rabid raccoons: it’s more serious now than it was two years ago because of a percentage increase in raccoons with rabies. However, the second sentence gives us an interesting statistic: the number of confirmed cases has gone down from two years ago to this year.

This plays off a very important distinction, which often comes up in flaw-type questions. This stimulus is comparing percentages to numbers. There is a whole host of reasons based on this alone that could explain this discrepancy. Other reasons could be that the data doesn’t accurately reflect the actual confirmed cases of rabid raccoons.

Answer Choice (A) Other animals? Does this explain the discrepancy between the percent and numbers? Nope. This is out.

Correct Answer Choice (B) With a significant portion of raccoons succumbing to rabies, this could explain the apparent discrepancy between numbers and percentages. Let's say two years ago there were 130 rabid raccoons and <25% had rabies, so 32 raccoons. Now, since there is a substantial decrease, it's possible that the raccoon population is 34, and 18 of them have rabies. 18 is still over 50% of 34 - this would explain the numbers! If you’re thinking “There are fewer of them in general, so how is this a serious problem??” However, a greater proportion of raccoons having rabies is still a pretty serious problem.

Answer Choice (C) This would be correct if we are assuming that the cases of rabies counted a few years ago were confused with distemper, and so the actual number of confirmed cases two years ago is a lot lower. However, that’s a pretty big assumption, one we cannot make. Without this assumption, the answer isn’t good.

Answer Choice (D) Outside information is okay, but saying that these animals are nocturnal does not help explain the conflict here.