Q8 - Engineers are investigating the suitability

[hyewonkim89]

Hi,

I was wondering if someone could go over this question.

Also what kind of a question is this question? I thought maybe one of the assumption questions, but I wasn't very familiar with its format.

I just picked D because I thought if the two reports were both right, they must have studied two different parts of the region. But I can't seem to confidently eliminate the other answers.

Thanks in advance.

[sumukh09]

This is like an explain the result question where the stimulus gives us two seemingly paradoxical sets of information and we're asked to somehow reconcile the disparity presented in the stimulus. In this question, the inconsistency has to do with both reports being accurate yet producing different results - that the region suffers from little erosion as evidenced by one report and that the region suffers from heavy erosion which is the result of the second report.
The question we need to ask ourselves is how are both reports are accurate yet producing different results?

D helps resolve that inconsistency for the reason you mentioned - both reports focused on different aspects.

A is wrong because not performing an extensive chemical analysis has no bearing on why the two results were different; we don't know what affect an extensive chemical analysis would have on anything

B is wrong because it doesn't matter that the reports included this feature - this still doesn't explain why the reports were accurate yet different

C is wrong because who prepared the results has no impact since we don't know anything about the relationship between who prepared the reports and how this would affect what the results would be

E is wrong because it's irrelevant what the difference in cost was of preparing the two reports; how does a difference in cost help explain the difference in results? We don't know.

[noah]

Nice write-up, sumukh. With some edits:

This is like an explain the result question where the stimulus gives us two seemingly paradoxical sets of information and we're asked to somehow reconcile the disparity presented in the stimulus. In this question, the inconsistency has to do with both reports being accurate yet producing different results - that the region suffers from little erosion as evidenced by one report and that the region suffers from heavy erosion which is the result of the second report.

The question we need to ask ourselves is how are both reports accurate yet producing different results?

(D) helps resolve that inconsistency for the reason you mentioned - each report focuses on a different aspect.

(A) tells us about something both reports do (or, more specifically, don't do). How does that give us a difference?

(B) is similar to (A) - they both do this!

(C) is wrong because who prepared the results has no impact since we don't know anything about the relationship between who prepared the reports and how this would affect what the results would be. Perhaps both the scientists and the consulting firm are known for being very good at this work.

(E) is wrong because it's irrelevant what the difference in cost was of preparing the two reports; how does a difference in cost help explain the difference in results? We don't know.

[james.h.meyers]

Nice write-up, sumukh. With some edits:

This is like an explain the result question where the stimulus gives us two seemingly paradoxical sets of information and we're asked to somehow reconcile the disparity presented in the stimulus. In this question, the inconsistency has to do with both reports being accurate yet producing different results - that the region suffers from little erosion as evidenced by one report and that the region suffers from heavy erosion which is the result of the second report.

The question we need to ask ourselves is how are both reports accurate yet producing different results?

(D) helps resolve that inconsistency for the reason you mentioned - each report focuses on a different aspect.

(A) tells us about something both reports do (or, more specifically, don't do). How does that give us a difference?

(B) is similar to (A) - they both do this!

(C) is wrong because who prepared the results has no impact since we don't know anything about the relationship between who prepared the reports and how this would affect what the results would be. Perhaps both the scientists and the consulting firm are known for being very good at this work.

(E) is wrong because it's irrelevant what the difference in cost was of preparing the two reports; how does a difference in cost help explain the difference in results? We don't know.

Noah -

I have a question about (A). I put a line next to it in case I didn't find something better, but then (D) came about and it was obviously the right answer.

My question about (A) is this: first I believed that chemicals in soil could be a cause of or contribute to erosion. Maybe it can't and that makes this answer irrelevant.

But if it could then I thought if there were a total of 100 chemicals in the soil and one test looked at 20 of the chemicals and the other test looked at 20 chemicals (because neither were extensive/exhaustive) then one test could have found that erosion is possibly a big problem because of certain chemicals and the other could have found that it is not a problem because it did not contain those chemicals.

What I am looking for is how I could eliminate this answer without looking at other answers - just on its own merit. Would it simply be that I had the wrong definition of erosion (because I guess it's usually just confined to wind/water)?

thanks.

[noah]

I have a question about (A). I put a line next to it in case I didn't find something better, but then (D) came about and it was obviously the right answer.

My question about (A) is this: first I believed that chemicals in soil could be a cause of or contribute to erosion. Maybe it can't and that makes this answer irrelevant.

But if it could then I thought if there were a total of 100 chemicals in the soil and one test looked at 20 of the chemicals and the other test looked at 20 chemicals (because neither were extensive/exhaustive) then one test could have found that erosion is possibly a big problem because of certain chemicals and the other could have found that it is not a problem because it did not contain those chemicals.

What I am looking for is how I could eliminate this answer without looking at other answers - just on its own merit. Would it simply be that I had the wrong definition of erosion (because I guess it's usually just confined to wind/water)?

thanks.

I don't think our goal is to always eliminate on the first pass--it's great that you left it and remained open to noticing a better-looking answer.

As for why (A) is wrong, we have to do a lot of work to make (A) work--look at how much detail you had to add. But, as my original explanation notes, the fact that (A) applies the same criticism to each report makes it immediately suspect. We want something the explains a difference.

I hope that helps.

[mharr]

Hi everyone,

Could answer choice b be viewed as furthering the paradox because there is computer evidence that supports the accuracy of both reports?

[deedubbew]

I have a question about (A). I put a line next to it in case I didn't find something better, but then (D) came about and it was obviously the right answer.

My question about (A) is this: first I believed that chemicals in soil could be a cause of or contribute to erosion. Maybe it can't and that makes this answer irrelevant.

But if it could then I thought if there were a total of 100 chemicals in the soil and one test looked at 20 of the chemicals and the other test looked at 20 chemicals (because neither were extensive/exhaustive) then one test could have found that erosion is possibly a big problem because of certain chemicals and the other could have found that it is not a problem because it did not contain those chemicals.

What I am looking for is how I could eliminate this answer without looking at other answers - just on its own merit. Would it simply be that I had the wrong definition of erosion (because I guess it's usually just confined to wind/water)?

thanks.

I don't think our goal is to always eliminate on the first pass--it's great that you left it and remained open to noticing a better-looking answer.

As for why (A) is wrong, we have to do a lot of work to make (A) work--look at how much detail you had to add. But, as my original explanation notes, the fact that (A) applies the same criticism to each report makes it immediately suspect. We want something the explains a difference.

I hope that helps.

The question stem asks for what most helps explain. While A offers a possibility that would help in strengthen questions, it does not fully resolve the discrepancy. These questions are more like sufficient assumption/justify questions than SA or NA questions which eliminate and produce possibilities indirectly related to the NA or SA.