Q26 - Smoking in bed has long

[wayne_palmer10]

I wasn't sure why (B) solved the discrepancy. Is it because it only talks about when?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I think you may have misread the question. (B) is correct because it doesn't solve the discrepancy (it's an except q).

[jrany12]

Hi,
Could you please explain why A explains the paradox and how B doesn't? Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

The paradox is this:

If smoking in bed was the main cause of home fires, and smoking has decreased, why are people still getting killed in home fires?

(A) basically says that smoking-in-bed fires don't cause much damage. This explains why smoking-in-bed fires aren't responsible for many deaths.

(B) doesn't tell us why people don't get killed by smoking-in-bed fires.

[eric.zeleznik]

But (B) says that home fires caused by smoking in bed often break out after the occupants fall asleep.

So isn't only logical to think that more people will die if they are asleep when there's a fire than if they were awake?

[bbirdwell]

So isn't only logical to think that more people will die if they are asleep when there's a fire than if they were awake?

Sure. And it doesn't matter.

From the explanation above:
smoking in bed = main cause of home fires
smoking has decreased
same amount of people dying in home fires

(B) is entirely irrelevant, because we would expect the number of people dying to go DOWN given the facts above. The question is, why hasn't it gone down? And (B) does not answer that question. It merely gives us reason to suspect that the people who smoke in bed will die in the event of fire. This would actually INCREASE the discrepancy by making it even more puzzling why, if the number of smokers has decreased, the number of home-fire deaths has not.

[carly.applebaum]

i am still having trouble figuring this question out. i have a problem with the wording of the question.
the problem starts out with smoking in bed causing house fires. but then it goes on to cig smoking in general and talks about number of people being killed, neither of which are mentioned in the first sentence. how can we resolve the discrepancy if the first and second sentence do not have anything in common? (i know this isn't the case since this question is valid, but that is the problem i'm dealing with).

but i continued on to try to solve the problem with this discrepancy in mind: smoking has decreased but the number of people killed has not. thus, why have fewer people not been killed? but is there a different intended discrepancy that we are looking for? (one that involved smoking in bed?)

sorry if that is really confusing. could someone please explain the thought process of figuring out the wording/discrepancy of the question and why each of the incorrect answer choices is incorrect? especially why b is doesn't resolve the discrepancy. i thought it would resolve it because (as someone mentioned above) even though fewer people are smoking, if fires start after people have fallen asleep, the fire could kill more people.

thank you!!

[mjf.listservs]

i think i can help break down the correct and incorrect answer choices for you.

we are trying to show why deaths from fires has not declined, even though smoking in bed (the number one cause of fires) has declined.

C: this is the opposite of what we are looking for, because it resolves the discrepancy. the prompt says that there has been a decline in smoking in the last two decades, and this answer suggests that those who smoke in bed were always the heaviest smokers - meaning that this population were not part of those quitting.

D: this answer also resolves the discrepancy, because it is saying that although smoking has declined, kitchen fires have increased. less people are dying from smoking in bed, but more people have died from burning their morning eggs.

E: this answer clearly resolves the discrepancy.

now for the two pain in the butt choices, A and B.

A: while this answer feels imperfect, it can help to resolve the discrepancy. they're telling us that fires caused by smoking cause little damage before being extinguished, meaning that they are usually put out before anyone can die. the thing to note here is that this fact doesn't give us a specific time frame in which it is true - as in, this could have been the case before the decline in smoking and after the decline in smoking. what answer A is really suggesting is that while most housefires used to be caused by smoking in bed, most fires that resulted in deaths were not the smoking-in-bed fires, so a decline in smoking wouldn't have much of an impact on deaths from fires anyway. in this way, it resolves the discrepancy. if fire deaths were never really caused from smoking in bed, why would a decline of smoking in bed reduce deaths?

B: this is the only one that does not resolve the discrepancy, and is the correct answer. if the fires break out from smoking in bed after the smoker has fallen asleep, it seems like there is a pretty high chance that the fire would start in the bed, on the occupant, or somewhere within arm's reach - meaning, a very high probability of death. if this is true, then a reduction in smoking, and therefore a reduction of smoking in bed, would definitely decrease the rate of deaths from fires. but we're trying to support the opposite - that death rates haven't decreased - leaving this as the only answer that does not resolve the discrepancy.

i hope this explanation helps!

[ericha3535]

Before answering the question, we need to identify the paradox.
Less people smoking yet still there are a lot of people dead from home fires.

It's really tricky but one thing you have to notice is what these "dead people" come from.
Just by simply reading the argument, one can easily infer that oh... all these people are solely dying from the home fires that are caused by smoking in bed.
No... that's not what the argument is saying though.
It is talking about overall number of dead people.
Consider this example:
Before two decade: There were 100 people getting killed by smoking in bed.
Also, there were 100 people who were getting killed by forgetting to turn off the stove.

After two decade: Now, since people are smoking less, there are 50 people getting killed by smoking in bed.
However, there are 150 people who are getting killed by forgetting to turn off the stove.

Interestingly, the overall number of dead people hasn't changed... right?

A) You have to note the first part... compared to other types...
So one can infer that even though smoking bed causes less deaths, other types (aka stove) can kill more people.

C) If heavy smokers are the ones who smoke in bed and they don't quit easily, it gives the possibility that they are causing home fires not in bed but somewhere else... like in kitchen or study room.

D) This is what my example is exactly talking about.

E) This obviously does the job.

B) This is just a totally neutral answer choice. Even if home fires happen after people fall asleep, they don't talk about why the number stays the same.

[cgentry]

Question Type:
Explain a Result
Stimulus Breakdown:
There are two separate issues here: what causes home fires, and correspondingly why the number of home fires would decrease is the first issue. According to the first sentence, cigarettes are the main cause, and with a decrease in cigarette smoking, one would expect the number of home fires to also decrease. Separate from that issue (although it would be easy to conflate the two) is the number of deaths from home fires.
Answer Anticipation:
Well, it's an EXCEPT question: so four of the answers will explain the decrease in number of deaths while at the same time acknowledging that the number of fires will have gone down.
Correct answer:
B
Answer choice analysis:
(A) This choice creates a disconnect between fires caused by cigarette smoking and the likelihood of death from that fire. So smoking, and fires from smoking, may have gone down…but according to this choice, those fires caused by smoking were never the fires likely to cause deaths.
(B) This choice actually makes the facts in the paragraph more perplexing…if home fires caused by smoking in bed start after the occupants have fallen asleep, then those fires would likely be more lethal. So, if those fires have decreased, one would have expected the deaths to decrease...but they haven't.
(C) This choice is very, very sneaky. This choice implies that, despite the fact that smoking has decreased, it has not decreased among the group of smokers whose smoking is most likely to cause fires. So, there may have been a decrease in smoking overall, and there may have been a decrease in home fires...but there has not been a decrease in the most dangerous home fires from smoking, because those people have not quit.
(D) This choice gives a reason for deaths from fires that do not involve smoking, and so accounts for the same number of deaths, despite a decrease in smoking.
(E) This choice creates a disconnect between the number of fires and the number of deaths per fire. More deaths per fire could keep the number of deaths constant, despite a smaller number of fires.

Takeaway/Pattern:
An EXCEPT question, probably more than any other, will require the most careful scrutiny of the two most competitive choices.

#officialexplanation

[YufeiR103]

I think a tricky point here is that causing fire is different from causing deaths, so there is a possibility that smoke-in-bed causes the majority of the home fires, but doesn't cause deaths at all. So, A can solve the discrepancy by saying that: yes, smoking causes a lot of fires, but since it could be distinguished and then eliminated before causing large damage, it seldom causes deaths, so the deaths caused be smoke-in-bed could always be rare; thus, even less people smoke now, the deaths caused by smoke in bed should be unchanged, since it has a small basis already.