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

Target time: 1:04

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
PT46 S2 Q06
+LR
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
A
7%
157
B
89%
164
C
0%
159
D
1%
152
E
3%
159
126
138
150
+Easier 144.676 +SubsectionEasier

We’ve got an RRE question which we can identify from the question stem: Which one of the following, if true, would most help to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the committee’s position?

The discrepancy in the stimulus appears fairly straightforward: natural grass causes more injuries than turf, natural grass costs more than turf, and yet, the committee recommends using natural grass over turf. What’s going on here?!?

Whenever you are given conditions like these on an RRE question, start to interrogate what they may be leaving out. This is particularly true when it comes to quantitative comparisons, like “turf causes fewer injuries than grass.” What does fewer tell us? Well it tells us something about the number of injuries caused by both types of field. It’s quantitative, meaning it pertains only to the number of injuries. It’s important not to confuse that with meaning it’s qualitative. It doesn’t tell us anything about the quality of the injuries. What if on average, there are 10 injuries per year on a grass field as opposed to 5 on a turf field, but by and large the injuries on grass are superficial cuts and bruises whereas the injuries on turf require trips to the hospital? Well suddenly the number of injuries per year is looking a whole lot less important, right?

Now that we’ve identified a potential scenario that would resolve this discrepancy, let’s turn to the answer choices:

Answer Choice (A) This is consistent with our facts but does nothing to resolve the paradox. Just because grass costs more than turf doesn’t mean that turf doesn’t cost anything at all. If the turf required extensive maintenance, who's to say that a grass field wouldn’t average even higher yearly maintenance costs?

Correct Answer Choice (B) This is our proposed resolution. Turf may cause less injuries, but they are more severe and cost more money. This goes even further than we did! Not only does it speak to the quality of the injuries, it undercuts the importance of the maintenance costs by suggesting that at least some of the money saved on turf maintenance costs would be offset by an increase in spending on injury management. It does everything we need it to, and is therefore, correct!

Answer Choice (C) This does nothing to resolve our paradox. The aesthetic difference between fields is not addressed anywhere in our stimulus and this is completely unrelated to the issues we are trying to reconcile.

Answer Choice (D) This is telling us what types of maintenance both field types require but it doesn’t matter. We know that grass costs more than turf to maintain but we don’t really care about how they are maintained.

Answer Choice (E) While the preferences of players may be worth considering in real life, we have no reason to think about them for this question as it does nothing to resolve our apparent paradox. We need to reconcile the higher cost and more injuries caused by natural grass with the committee’s recommendation to use natural grass. Athlete preference doesn’t do anything to resolve this discrepancy.