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

Target time: 0:42

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 Q04
+LR
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
A
1%
155
B
1%
154
C
2%
152
D
1%
151
E
95%
167
132
139
147
+Easier 146.82 +SubsectionMedium

This is a Resolve, Reconcile, and Explain Question. We know this because of the question stem, which includes: “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.”

Our first sentence is pretty long; however, if you break it down by figuring out the subject and then building onto that, that could be helpful. We're told the aquifers themselves don’t have bacteria but water is chlorinated because it could be contaminated due to cross-contamination with old pipes. Then we’re given a specific instance of municipalities getting water from the same aquifer: there are 50 of them, 30 chlorinate their water and 20 do not. The 20 that do not chlorinate their water have lower levels of bacteria in their water when compared with the 30 that do chlorinate their water. This is surprising! Wouldn't chlorinating the water help reduce the bacteria, especially compared to those who do not chlorinate the water?

The discrepancy is when these 50 municipalities are getting water from the same aquifer, how is it that those who chlorinate their water, supposedly killing bacteria, have higher levels of bacteria than those who do not chlorinate their water? This is a legitimate conflict, but there are things that could explain this. For example, what if the pipes for those 30 municipalities are old and gross and that’s why they chlorinate their water? That could potentially explain it.

Let’s look at the answer choices:

Answer Choice (A) How does this help account for the unexpected level of bacteria in chlorine water? It doesn’t! This information isn’t helpful for our issue.

Answer Choice (B) This could be a reason why the 20 did not chlorinate their water; however, does this explains why the 30 that did have higher levels of bacteria? No. This is out.

Answer Choice (C) This adds more information that deepens the conflict - not only did they not add chlorine, but there are also no other chemicals that they added to disinfect their water. If the opposite was stated, it could work. But as is, this is out.

Answer Choice (D) This answer choice notes something about these two groups that were similar, not how they were different. This won't help us resolve any conflict. This isn’t good.

Correct Answer Choice (E) This answer choice says that the pipes for the 20 municipalities are cleaner because their government has strict requirements for them, and therefore they would not need to add chlorine because their pipes are already in good shape compared to those municipalities that have to chlorinate their water.