Simple Guide on Paradox Questions

Intro to Paradox Questions

This blog is a part of the “Approach Question Type” series and like all articles in this series will focus on step 4 of the “Analyze Stimulus” step. If you need a refresher on how to approach LR questions generally, make sure to check up on our blog "How to Approach the Logical Reasoning Section.”

‍Table of Contents:

• What is a Paradox Question?
• Approach
• Two Example Walkthroughs

‍

What is a Paradox Question?

These questions present a situation or a set of statements that appear to be contradictory or puzzling, and the test-taker's task is to identify the explanation or reconcile the apparent discrepancy. Paradox questions test our assumptions skill. We assume that there is a paradox between the two statements presented to us. 

Question Stem

• "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?"
• "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the phenomenon described above?"
• "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the apparent conflict?"

‍

Approach

1. Identify two phenomena: 
   • The first step is to identify the two phenomena/events/situations that we are dealing with in the stimulus. Usually we can separate out the two sentences. 
2. Assumption:
   • The second step is to identify what the LSAT writers want us to think is weird about the existence of the two phenomena and why it is weird. Why does the LSAT want us to accept this paradox?
3. Answer choices: some text
   • Finally we try to resolve, reconcile, or explain the paradox between the two phenomena. We do this by being skeptical. The LSAT writers will make a paradox that, on surface level, plays to our natural inclination to accept the paradox. Go against this inclination and pick out the nuances. The correct answer choice will usually relate to or address both phenomena.
   • While practicing paradox questions, you can attempt to predict some of the potential paradox’s before looking at the answer choices. This can be a creative exercise that tests your assumptions ability.

Our goal is not necessarily to resolve the paradox (though an answer choice may do that). Depending on the question stem, our task may simply be to explain the paradox. This is why paradox questions can also be referred to as Resolve, Reconcile, Explain (RRE) question types. 

‍

Example Walkthroughs

Example 1

Paradox: I never see Sarah study yet she receives straight A’s every semester. 

Step 1: The two events are 

A) getting straight A’s every semester and 

B) I never see Sarah study.

Step 2: Assumption

The LSAT writers want us to assume that getting straight A’s usually coexists with studying.

Step 3: Skepticism. 

Why assume studying leads to straight A’s? There are infinite reasons why this paradox isn’t actually well-founded. The obvious one that we can nitpick out of the stimulus is this following assumption:

• Just because I never see Sarah study, doesn’t mean she studies. Are we assuming that if not seen studying, then she doesn’t study?

Some other ways to address the paradox:

• Maybe Sarah takes only easy courses where A’s are guaranteed.
• Maybe Sarah is the daughter of the Dean, so she gets special treatment in grading.
• Maybe everyone gets straight A’s at Sarah’s school.
• Maybe Sarah is a genius and doesn’t need to study.

Any of these may be an answer choice, or none. This is why paradox questions rely in part on creative assumptions created to resolve or explain the paradox. 

‍

Example 2 

Stimulus:

Despite the fact that the new medication has been proven effective in clinical trials, many patients who have been prescribed it report no improvement in their symptoms.

Step 1: Two phenomenon

A) new medication was proven effective in trial

B) many patients prescribed the new medication report no improvement in symptoms

Step 2: Assumption

The LSAT writers want us to assume that “proven effective” in trial should mean patients report improvement in symptoms

Step 3: Skepticism. 

Attacking each part of the assumptions in the phenomena. Consider reasons why effective medication might not work for some patients (e.g., improper usage, different patient characteristics).

• How do we define “proven effective” in a trial?
• Symptoms improvement might not necessarily equate to curability and improvement of disease
• How can we trust the patient reports?
• How can we trust the trial results?
• How can we be certain the patients in the clinical trial and those that were prescribed the medication afterwards are the same type of clinical groups?
• The clinical trials only included patients with mild symptoms, while many of the patients currently prescribed the medication have severe symptoms
• Most of the patients prescribed the medication fail to take it as directed.

‍