Explain/Resolve
Help Questions
LSAT Logical Reasoning › Explain/Resolve
A newspaper reports that subscriptions to its print edition declined this year. Yet its total subscription revenue increased, and its editors say the newsroom budget grew. At the same time, the newspaper reduced the number of pages in each print issue. These facts appear difficult to reconcile, since fewer print subscribers and smaller issues would seem likely to reduce subscription revenue and constrain the newsroom budget.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?
The newspaper hired a new editor-in-chief during the year.
The newspaper printed fewer copies of each issue to reduce waste.
The newspaper’s advertisers shifted spending to online ads rather than print ads.
The newspaper increased the price of its print subscription and also gained many new digital-only subscribers.
The newspaper’s editors preferred shorter articles to longer ones.
Explanation
This paradox presents declining print subscriptions while total subscription revenue and newsroom budget increased, despite smaller print issues. The resolution involves understanding how digital transformation affects newspaper economics. Choice A explains that the newspaper increased print subscription prices and gained many new digital-only subscribers. Digital subscriptions typically have higher margins than print, and premium pricing on remaining print subscriptions could more than offset circulation losses. This allows revenue growth despite print decline. Choice D about advertiser behavior affects advertising revenue, not subscription revenue. In media industry paradoxes, consider how digital transitions can create new revenue streams that compensate for traditional format declines while changing cost structures.
Sales of organic produce have increased significantly over the past year, yet the overall consumption of fruits and vegetables has remained constant. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?
Many consumers are replacing conventional produce with organic options without increasing their total consumption.
Organic produce is often perceived as healthier by consumers.
The increase in sales is primarily due to a rise in organic farming subsidies.
There has been a simultaneous increase in the consumption of processed foods.
Organic produce tends to be more expensive, limiting the quantity purchased per customer.
Explanation
The puzzle involves increasing organic produce sales while overall fruit and vegetable consumption remains constant. Choice B resolves this by explaining that consumers are substituting organic for conventional produce rather than adding to their total consumption. This substitution pattern allows organic sales to rise significantly while keeping total consumption steady. Choice A about higher prices might seem relevant, but limiting quantity per customer doesn't explain how total consumption stays constant while organic sales increase dramatically. This paradox illustrates how market shifts often involve substitution rather than pure addition, and successful resolution requires identifying what consumers are replacing rather than simply adding.
A manufacturing plant reports that workplace injuries declined this year. Yet the plant’s insurer reports that total payouts for injury claims increased, and the plant’s human resources department reports more days of employee absence due to injury. The plant also notes that it introduced stricter safety rules and required more reporting of minor incidents. These facts appear difficult to reconcile, since fewer injuries would seem to lead to fewer payouts and fewer injury-related absences.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?
Some employees received safety training in a language other than their first language.
The insurer changed its policy forms to include more detailed descriptions of each claim.
The injuries that did occur this year tended to be more severe and required longer recovery times than last year’s injuries.
The plant hired more employees this year than it employed last year.
The plant’s stricter safety rules required employees to wear additional protective equipment.
Explanation
This paradox shows workplace injuries declining while insurance payouts and injury-related absences increased. The resolution involves understanding how injury severity affects costs and recovery time independent of frequency. Choice A explains that injuries that did occur were more severe and required longer recovery times than last year's injuries. Fewer but more serious injuries would reduce the total number while increasing costs and absence days per incident. This demonstrates how injury prevention programs might successfully reduce frequency while the remaining incidents become more consequential. Choice B about protective equipment doesn't explain the cost-frequency discrepancy. In workplace safety paradoxes, consider how the nature and severity of incidents can change even when overall frequency improves.
A tech company reports that the average time its customer-support agents spend on each phone call decreased after the company introduced a new troubleshooting script. Yet customer reviews posted during the same period show an increase in complaints that callers are being transferred multiple times before their issues are resolved. The company did not change the number of agents on staff, and it did not add new product lines during that period. Both the call-time metric and the reviews are said to reflect the month immediately following the script’s introduction.
Many customer reviews focus on the politeness of agents rather than on technical outcomes.
The company’s products are used by both individual consumers and large businesses.
The new script instructs agents to transfer specialized issues more quickly to other departments rather than attempting extended troubleshooting themselves.
Some customers prefer to use online chat support rather than calling by phone.
The average wait time before a caller reaches an agent decreased slightly after the script was introduced.
Explanation
The paradox pits shorter average call times against more complaints about multiple transfers, suggesting the new script improved efficiency in one metric but worsened customer experience in another. Resolution requires explaining how quicker calls lead to more transfers without contradicting the data. The correct choice does this by revealing the script prompts faster transfers for specialized issues, reducing individual call times but increasing overall transfers per issue. A tempting wrong answer might note decreased wait times to reach agents, but this improves access without addressing transfer complaints. It touches on efficiency but not the paradox core. For these questions, add context to reconcile facts, such as procedural changes, instead of siding with one report over the other.
A newspaper reports that the number of reported bicycle thefts in a neighborhood declined after the police installed more street cameras. Yet a local insurance company reports that the total amount it paid out for bicycle theft claims in that neighborhood increased during the same period. The insurance company did not change its coverage terms, and the neighborhood’s population remained stable. Both the newspaper and the insurer say their figures cover the same six-month period before and after the cameras were installed.
Some residents purchased new bicycles during the later period because of a local cycling initiative.
The police department increased patrols in the neighborhood during the later period.
Bicycles stolen during the later period tended to be more expensive than those stolen during the earlier period.
The street cameras were installed primarily on the neighborhood’s main commercial streets rather than on residential side streets.
The insurance company processes claims more quickly now than it did in the earlier period.
Explanation
The paradox involves fewer reported bicycle thefts after camera installation but higher insurance payouts for such claims, suggesting thefts declined yet costs rose. To resolve it, we need something that lets payouts increase despite fewer incidents. The correct answer provides this by indicating stolen bikes were more expensive in the later period, raising total claim values with fewer thefts. A tempting wrong choice might discuss camera placement on main streets, but this explains theft patterns without linking to payout increases. It relates to prevention but misses the financial discrepancy. The key strategy is adding context, such as value shifts, to make both facts compatible rather than dismissing one side.
A conservation group notes that a protected wetland has seen a steady increase in the number of nesting pairs of a certain bird species over the past five years. Yet a separate government survey conducted this year found that the total number of individual birds of that species observed in the wetland during peak season was lower than it was in last year’s survey. The wetland’s boundaries and the timing of the surveys were unchanged, and neither group reports any major habitat loss during the period in question.
The bird species is migratory and may shift among nearby wetlands from year to year based on food availability.
The government survey counted only adult birds, whereas the conservation group’s nesting-pair data included juveniles.
The protected wetland is visited by more birdwatchers now than it was five years ago.
The government survey used binoculars with higher magnification than those used in last year’s survey.
The conservation group relies on volunteers, while the government survey uses professional field biologists.
Explanation
This paradox contrasts a steady rise in nesting pairs over five years with a drop in total individual birds observed this year versus last, puzzling since more nests might imply more birds. To harmonize them, we seek a reason why total counts could fall even as nesting increases. The correct answer resolves it by explaining the birds are migratory and shift locations yearly, so this wetland might have more committed nesters but fewer transient visitors this year, lowering totals. A tempting choice could highlight differences in survey methods, like counting only adults, but this questions data accuracy without bridging the gap. It casts doubt rather than providing reconciliation. Paradox resolution thrives on contextual additions, like behavioral patterns, that allow both trends to coexist truthfully.
A public health department reports that, after a citywide campaign promoting handwashing, the percentage of residents who say they wash their hands frequently increased in a follow-up survey. Yet local clinics report that cases of a contagious stomach virus rose during the same month the follow-up survey was conducted. The campaign’s messaging and the clinics’ case reports both focused on the same neighborhoods, and the clinics did not change their testing practices during that time. Officials insist that both the survey results and the clinic reports are reliable.
The stomach virus can spread through contaminated food even when people wash their hands frequently.
Some clinics extended their hours during the month the follow-up survey was conducted.
The campaign was funded by a grant from a national health organization.
The follow-up survey included fewer respondents than the initial survey did.
Many residents also began using hand sanitizer more often during the campaign period.
Explanation
In this scenario, the paradox is that self-reported handwashing increased after a campaign, yet cases of a stomach virus rose, contradicting the expectation that better hygiene reduces infections. To resolve it, we need a factor showing why handwashing wouldn't prevent this particular virus. The correct answer provides this by stating the virus spreads through contaminated food, not just hand contact, allowing cases to increase despite more handwashing. A tempting distractor could mention increased hand sanitizer use, but this reinforces hygiene efforts without explaining the virus uptick. It adds to the campaign's side but ignores the discrepancy. The strategy for paradoxes is to introduce context that lets both facts stand, like alternative transmission methods, rather than rejecting one as inaccurate.
At a city library, administrators report that total in-person visits this year are 15 percent higher than last year. Yet a separate internal report says that the average number of visitors present in the building at any given time during open hours has dropped noticeably, and staff members say the reading rooms feel less crowded most afternoons. Both reports are said to be based on accurate counts rather than estimates, and the library’s hours of operation have not changed since last year.
The library’s administrators are planning to renovate the reading rooms next year.
The library has hired more staff members this year than it had last year.
A much larger proportion of this year’s visits consist of brief stops to pick up reserved books rather than extended stays.
Several nearby coffee shops have begun offering discounts to people who show a library card.
The library’s total circulation of physical books has decreased slightly compared with last year.
Explanation
The paradox here involves two seemingly incompatible facts: total visits to the library increased by 15%, yet the building feels less crowded and fewer people are present at any given time. To resolve this apparent contradiction, we need information that explains how more visits can occur while simultaneous occupancy decreases. Answer choice (A) provides exactly this explanation by revealing that the nature of visits has changed—more people are making brief stops to pick up reserved books rather than staying for extended periods. This means the library processes more individual visits throughout the day, but each visitor spends less time inside, resulting in lower occupancy at any moment. Choice (D) might seem relevant because it mentions decreased circulation, but this addresses a different metric entirely and doesn't explain the visit/occupancy discrepancy. When resolving paradoxes, look for answers that reframe how we understand the situation rather than introducing unrelated facts.
A technology conference reports that overall attendance increased this year. Yet the organizers report that fewer tickets were sold, and that the conference reduced its marketing budget. Several exhibitors also say they spoke with fewer unique visitors at their booths. These facts seem hard to reconcile, since higher attendance would seem to require more ticket sales and would likely increase exhibitor traffic.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the situation described above?
The conference schedule included more sessions running at the same time than in prior years.
Many attendees preferred to watch keynote talks rather than visit exhibitor booths.
Exhibitors offered fewer promotional giveaways at their booths this year.
The conference issued many complimentary passes to sponsors, speakers, and students that were not counted as tickets sold.
The conference changed venues to a convention center with larger meeting rooms.
Explanation
This paradox presents increased conference attendance while fewer tickets were sold and marketing budget was reduced, with exhibitors seeing fewer unique visitors. The resolution involves understanding different categories of conference participants. Choice A explains that many complimentary passes were issued to sponsors, speakers, and students that weren't counted as tickets sold. This would increase total attendance without increasing sales revenue, and these non-paying attendees might be less likely to visit exhibitor booths extensively. Choice D about simultaneous sessions doesn't address the ticket sales discrepancy. In event management paradoxes, distinguish between total attendance figures and paying customer metrics, as conferences often include various categories of participants with different economic relationships to the event.
A museum reports that after it made admission free on Fridays, total weekly attendance increased. Yet the museum shop’s revenue decreased, even though more visitors passed through the shop area to exit the building. The museum did not change shop prices, and it expanded the shop’s selection of souvenirs. Staff also report that visitors spent about the same amount of time in the museum galleries as before. These facts appear difficult to reconcile.
The museum added new exhibits that attracted visitors interested in modern art.
Some visitors reported that the museum was more crowded on Fridays.
Many of the additional Friday visitors were school groups whose students were not allowed to make purchases in the museum shop.
The museum’s café introduced several new menu items.
The museum shop began accepting more types of credit cards.
Explanation
This paradox involves increased museum attendance on free Fridays but decreased shop revenue, despite more visitors passing through the shop area. Choice (A) resolves this by explaining that many additional Friday visitors were school groups whose students were not allowed to make purchases in the museum shop. This means the increased foot traffic consisted largely of non-purchasing visitors who couldn't buy souvenirs due to school policies or lack of spending money. The museum successfully attracted more visitors but chose a strategy that brought in groups with little purchasing power. Choice (E) about crowding is tempting but doesn't explain the revenue decrease. Effective paradox resolution often involves recognizing that not all increases in volume translate to proportional increases in revenue, especially when the additional volume comes from different customer segments with different spending capabilities.