## **Learning Outcomes**

This article explains how to approach LSAT 'resolve the paradox' and 'explain the discrepancy' question types. After studying, you should be able to identify paradoxes and discrepancies in logical reasoning stimuli, understand why apparent contradictions are tested, and apply systematic strategies to select the answer that best explains how unexpected facts or trends can coexist. You will also learn common traps and how to distinguish correct from tempting but wrong answers.

## **LSAT Syllabus**

For LSAT, you are required to understand how to approach stimuli presenting apparent contradictions or unexplained differences. In preparing for this topic, focus on:

- Recognizing what constitutes a paradox or a discrepancy in a logical reasoning stimulus
- Applying reasoning to resolve conflicting facts within the “world of the question”
- Differentiating these question types from strengthen/weaken and assumption questions
- Eliminating answer choices that introduce irrelevant content or fail to bridge the gap

## **Test Your Knowledge**

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. What is the primary objective of a resolve the paradox question?  
   a) Support the argument's conclusion  
   b) Identify a missing assumption  
   c) Explain how two conflicting facts can both be true  
   d) Show a flaw in argumentation

2. True or false? The correct answer to a resolve the paradox question must rule out any possible alternative explanation.

3. In which of the following situations would you be likely to find a 'resolve the paradox' question?  
   a) A passage where two survey results seem incompatible  
   b) A stimulus with an explicit recommendation  
   c) An argument using formal logic  
   d) A flaw question focused on causation

4. What is a common wrong answer trap for resolve/explain questions?  
   a) Explains only one side of the conflict  
   b) Restates one fact  
   c) Offers irrelevant new information  
   d) All of the above

## **Introduction**

When tackling LSAT logical reasoning, you will encounter question types that present a surprising, puzzling, or apparently contradictory set of facts. Resolve the paradox and explain the discrepancy questions require you to find an answer that makes all the information in the stimulus compatible. This is distinct from questions that ask you to strengthen, weaken, or identify assumptions.

These questions test your ability to analyze conflicting evidence or results and select an explanation that can plausibly account for why both sides could be accurate. The key is not to pick an answer that supports one side or refutes the other, but instead to choose an explanation that bridges the apparent contradiction—as if you were a neutral investigator, not an advocate for either side.

> **Key Term: paradox**  
> A situation involving two or more facts within the same scenario that appear to contradict each other, but can both be true given an undisclosed explanation.
>
> **Key Term: discrepancy**  
> An unexpected difference, result, or outcome that requires a plausible explanation for the facts to make sense together, often seen as an "odd result" or an exception to an expected trend.
>
> **Key Term: resolve the paradox question**  
> A question type requiring you to select an answer that explains how two (or more) apparently incompatible facts can both be true.
>
> **Key Term: explain the discrepancy question**  
> A question type where the answer should clarify why an unexpected or counterintuitive result has occurred, typically by supplying missing background or context.

### Types of Paradox and Discrepancy Questions

LSAT paradox questions typically fall into two categories:

1. **Explicit paradox:** Two statements directly presented in the stimulus create a contradiction or puzzle. The question stem asks you to resolve or explain it.
2. **Surprise result or discrepancy:** A set of expected facts or trends is contrasted with an unexpected or counterintuitive outcome, and your job is to explain why.

Typical stems include:

- "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the paradox above?"
- "Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?"
- "Which one of the following best explains how both statements can be true?"

> **Revision Tip**  
> For resolve/explain questions, always focus on uncovering a fact or relationship that can allow both sides of the contradiction to coexist within the world of the question.

### Strategy

The correct answer to a resolve the paradox or explain the discrepancy question will typically:

- Provide a "missing link"—additional information that, if true, makes the facts fit together logically.
- Offer a distinction (e.g., between two groups, time frames, methods) that removes the conflict.
- Present a variable or outside factor not originally considered in the stimulus.

**Common wrong answers:**

- Support only one side, ignoring the other
- Restate an existing fact
- Widen the paradox or introduce unrelated information
- Offer an explanation that would not actually affect the fundamental contradiction

### **Worked Example 1.1**

A magazine reports: "Despite a new law banning cell phone use while driving, accidents involving drivers using phones increased in the city last year."

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain this result?

A) Drivers elsewhere also increased their accident rates  
B) Enforcement of the new law focused only on certain neighborhoods  
C) The law does not apply to hands-free phone use, and most increased accidents involved hands-free devices  
D) Weather was worse than average last year  
E) The city's population decreased

> **Answer:** C. This explains how both the law (banning phone use) could be in effect and yet the accidents rose, if most new incidents involved phone activities not covered by the ban. The other options do not explain the apparent contradiction between the ban and the increase.

### **Worked Example 1.2**

Study: "Daily vitamin supplement users report more fatigue than non-users, even though vitamins are said to boost energy."

Which one of the following best explains this apparent discrepancy?  
A) People who are already fatigued are more likely to begin taking daily vitamins  
B) The vitamin supplement contained sugar  
C) The survey was not conducted anonymously  
D) The vitamin group exercised less  
E) Doctors recommend vitamins for healthy people

> **Answer:** A. If people who feel fatigued are more likely to take supplements, that could explain why supplement-users as a group report lower energy, despite the claim that vitamins boost energy.

### **Exam Warning**

> In resolve/explain questions, do not pick an answer that resolves the contradiction by rejecting or ignoring a fact from the stimulus. The correct answer should allow both sides to remain true.

#### Spotting Relevant Information

A good resolve/explain answer does at least one of the following:

- Identifies a meaningful difference between groups, times, or contexts
- Provides a hidden variable that changes how one or both sides are interpreted
- Suggests there were measurement or categorization differences
- Adds limiting context (e.g., "all X, except..." or "X only among...")

Avoid answers that:

- Only restate a part of the conflict
- Introduce a reason or cause completely unrelated to the facts given
- Create new contradictions

### **Worked Example 1.3**

Company memo: "When our stores switched to 24-hour hours, late-night sales increased, but our overall profits decreased."

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve this paradox?  
A) The new late-night hours resulted in much higher staffing and operating costs  
B) Another company also extended its hours  
C) Late-night sales increased in only one location  
D) The change was unpopular with employees  
E) Product prices were raised during the day

> **Answer:** A. Increased sales do not always lead to more profits if costs increase even more. This option directly reconciles the apparent contradiction.

### **Revision Tip**

> When reading a paradox/discrepancy question, try verbally restating the apparent contradiction as a question (“How could X and Y both be true?”). Then, after reviewing each answer, ask if it truly makes both sides compatible, not just if it’s true on its own.

## **Key Point Checklist**

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Recognize and understand resolve the paradox and explain the discrepancy question types on the LSAT
- Correct answers must allow both conflicting facts to be true or clarify how an unexpected result is possible
- Common traps include answers supporting only one side, irrelevance, or restating part of the paradox
- Analytical strategy: seek distinctions, hidden variables, or missing context that can bridge the contradiction
- Always check whether your answer explains the conflict within the “world of the question”

## **Key Terms and Concepts**

- paradox
- discrepancy
- resolve the paradox question
- explain the discrepancy question

Logical reasoning question types - Resolve the paradox and explain the discrepancy questions