Q22 - Shortly after the Persian Gulf

[tzyc]

How does (D) solve the discrepancy??
I might not understand the stimulus well...doesn't the part "result in high level of PAHs" of (D) contradicts "(PAHs)...were relatively low"?

[sumukh09]

The stimulus is basically saying that after the war there was less oil contamination and a lower level of PAH's when we would expect there to be more oil contamination and a higher level of PAHs as suggested by the fact that the area was subjected to deliberate oil spills and hundreds of smoky oil fires during the war.

D) resolves the discrepancy because when oil was being produced before the war it resulted in high levels of PAHs and massive oil dumping and we know that during the war this production slowed down as stated in the stimulus. Thus if peacetime oil production caused high levels of PAHs and massive oil dumping and during the war this production slowed down, then that could help explain the relatively low levels of PAHs and less oil contamination.

[maryadkins]

Yes! Great explanation. Let me know if you'd like any further clarification...

[ellisz1]

Hi. Can anybody explain why C is incorrect?

[sumukh09]

Hi. Can anybody explain why C is incorrect?

C is wrong because it's not really a comparison between two areas ie) desert/temperate. The stim is making a comparison within the region of the Persian Gulf and later adds to the paradox by introducing the temperate area of the Baltic Sea. Even if we grant C, we still haven't resolved the paradox about the less oil contamination in the Persian Gulf post-war relative to pre-war.

[ohthatpatrick]

Let me go ahead and give a complete explanation:

Question Type:
Explain the Discrepancy

Reading task:
Understand the apparent discrepancy/paradox/surprise.
Normally we're given a certain fact and then an unexpected result comes next. Sometimes it helps to think what the EXPECTED result would be.

The given:
During the Gulf War, there were tons of smoky oil fires and deliberate oil spills

The expected result:
You'd think that would make post-war measurements of oil contamination and PAH levels higher than usual.

The unexpected result:
In reality, the post-war oil contamination was similar to pre-war levels. And the post-war PAH levels were as low as in temperate oil-producing areas of the Baltic Sea (it's not really clear why this is an apt comparison ... it seems to just be an example of an oil producing area that is not in a period of wartime)

What do we want the correct answer choice to do?
Either to explain why the post-war levels are as low as the pre-war and temperate non-war levels
or to explain why the pre-war and temperate non-war levels are as high as the post-war levels

(A) The question never says that the Persian Gulf area is a desert region, so I would be skeptical that LSAT expects us to have/use that outside knowledge. Another problem is that oil contamination was only brought up in reference to the Persian Gulf area pre-war vs. post-war. The temperate region is only introduced when we're talking about PAH levels.

(B) This is the opposite of what we need. If they told us that oil contam / PAH pollution dissipated more rapidly in desert regions, we could say, "Well then THAT'S why the post-war levels look like temperate non-war levels".

(C) This is closer, but we still have the problem that "desert region" was never brought up in the stimulus. Even if we allowed the assumption that Persian Gulf area = desert, this would only explain why the post-war Persian Gulf looked comparable to a Baltic temperate area. It still wouldn't explain why the post-war Persian Gulf looks comparable to the pre-war Persian Gulf (which would both be desert).

(D) This explains that the pre-war levels of contamination would actually be quite high to begin with (due to high PAH levels and massive oil dumping). During the war, "when regular oil production slowed down", we would just be replacing contamination from production/transport with contamination from smoky oil fires and deliberate oil spills. This, then, explains why post-war and pre-war levels are the same. It also allows us to explain why PAH levels post-war might resemble PAH levels near an oil-producing area in the Baltic Sea.

(E) The war may have ended before the fires and spills did "as much damage as expected", but that doesn't change the fact that there were still hundreds of fires and spills. So we would still expect the post-war measurements to be more contaminated then the pre-war measurements (this answer just tells us the post-war area wouldn't be AS extra-contaminated as we expected, but it still would be extra-contaminated).

(D) is the correct answer

Hope this helps.

[agersh144]

Fantastic breakdown, wish all explanations were this thorough -- outstanding!

[MensaNumber]

Great explanation OhThatPatrick! However I see minor errors in terms of facts and what should form the core of the paradox here.

First the facts-
"What do we want the correct answer choice to do?
Either to explain why the post-war levels are as low as the pre-war and temperate non-war levels
or to explain why the pre-war and temperate non-war levels are as high as the post-war levels"

The stimulus doesnt say - the pre and post war levels were the same. It says - the post-war levels were LOWER than those of the pre-war levels and PAHs levels were the same in the war zone and the Baltic. (the word used is 'comparable')

Second, once we have the facts correct, we will realize that the real discrepancy arises from the unexpected results of pre and post war pollution levels. Comparison with the Baltic area only serves kinda illustration(IMO spurious) . Or more plausibly the test maker is trying to mislead us and to test us if we can separate the wheat from the chaff.

As soon as we get the core, it is quite easy to see how only D addresses the real issue and why is the right answer.

[civnetn]

So, I know instructors can't answer because I haven't purchased anything, but if anyone else would like to chyme in, be my guest.

I have a concern with answer choice D that caused me to get this question wrong.

Couldn't peacetime refer to before OR after the war? The question doesn't use the past tense, so there's nothing indicating peacetime refers to before the war. It's just a blanket statement that during peacetime, production and transport of oil causes these negative environmental effects.

It seems pretty reasonable to think that if a war has ended, there is no war and therefore peace. Like, I don't think that's a huge leap to make.

So if anything, wouldn't D actually create a discrepancy? If during peacetime, these negative environmental effects occur, and if there was peace before and after the war, why are the results different?