CR -> Resolve the paradox

[Syed Mehboob]

Please explain your answers :

Parents often criticize schools for not doing their job. Many blame schools for low student achievement scores. Surprisingly, the most frequent and vociferous complaints come from those who live in districts where the achievement scores are high.

All of the following, considered individually, help to explain the apparent paradox EXCEPT:
A. Parents from districts of high achievers are very involved with the schools and are, therefore, more likely to make critical comments.
B. Parents have no knowledge of their district's own scores.
C. High scores cause parents' expectations to rise leading parents to demand that students achieve even more.
D. High-scoring districts contain low-achieving students whose parents are likely to complain when their children score below the local average.
E. Most complaints about schools come from political activists, most of whom live in high-achieving districts.

[puja hait]

Kinda tricky... Is it B?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GMAT Toppers" group.
To post to this group, send email to gmat-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gmat-toppers...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gmat-toppers?hl=en.

[jyothi nookula]

IMO E.
In resolve the paradox questions, we need to explain both sides of the paradox.
The paradox is this:
parents i) blame schools for low student achievement scores.
           ii)maximum complaints come from districts where scores are high.

A) if parents are very involved with the schools, then it is possible to explain both the cases: number of complaints registered will be high and it is due to the complaints and further action taken that scores in those districts are high.so it explains the paradox.

B)Parents do not have knowledge of their district scores and hence they feel the students actually have not scored high, while actually they are top scorers. Explains the paradox.

C)This is a valid explanation.If the expectation are high, even what might seem high scores for others might seem still low for them. that may lead to the complaints even though their students are top scorers.

D) This is a direct explanation of the paradox. if there are low achieving students in the district, then the complaints must be from their parents while the district overall produces top scorers.

E) It talks about complaints coming from political activists. Our qualifier, is parents complaining. Nowhere are we concerned about the activists complaining nor does it help us to reason out why parents complain even though their districts produce top scorers. So clearly, E does not qualify the qualifier.Hence, the correct answer.

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Syed Mehboob <syed....@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Ravi]

I would go with B too.. Thats the only option that opens the argument up for more criticism.

[Ravi]

E is a very promising answer but the passage doesnt specifically say only parents complain does it? Activists may and will influence the way people including parents think. Also Activists who can also be parents will be more loud that just parents.

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:52 PM, jyothi nookula <jyothi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[jyothi nookula]

The stimulus given to us is parents complaining. How activists influence the parents is not directly known.
Also in B, if the parents do not know about their district scores, they are bound to think that their students are getting low and complain to school wherein actually they must be high scorers. For eg - say the average score of the be 82%. As a parent i might feel the score is low and hence complain to school. But on the overall maybe other districts get less than this and hence i stand on top. If i do not have the information i cannot calculatively make a decision on my position.

[Ravi]

yes, so B's inference says why parents complain, it does not explain why some districts' complaints are higher. Parents can think either way without the knowledge of the district scores.

whereas E does explain both sides, even though there is a bit of inference and assumption involved. (Note : i dont like to assume any more that any of you guys do)

[Syed Mehboob]

OA is (B).............

I was also stuck between (B) and (E). I think Ravi's explanation makes sense....

[jyothi nookula]

i still dont understand why B is right. Could u let me know where my line of thought is missing!

[Ravi]

This is a except question. Pick the odd man out. B is the only answer that does not explain the paradox, it actually opens it up for more criticism. If the parents dont know what the district scores are how would you be able to figure out whether or not they would complain more?

Do you still think E is the answer? Explain what you have not understood, we will try our best to clear it up.

[jyothi nookula]

But how does E explain the discrepancy?It may be assumed that political activists are vociferous about complaints but why should there be so many complaints when the district scores are high? how does this explain both sides of the paradox?

[Ravi]

Parents complain. Most complaints come from high achieving districts. Any choice that gives a reason as to why the complaints are high in districts with high scores is the wrong answer. Option E says that the Activists are in high achieving districts.

Read option E again carefully...

E. Most complaints about schools come from political activists, most of whom live in high-achieving districts.

Most activists and Most of them living in high-achieving districts. That does account to a lot of complaints.

[jyothi nookula]

hmm. i understand now. thanks a lot for the clear explanation!!!

[Syed Mehboob]

What is the paradox here?

less oil contamination Vs low PAHs ?? more combustion prodcuts were expected to eject from oil wells with less oil contamination??

Shortly after the Persian Gulf War, investigators reported that the area, which had been subjected to hundreds of smoky oil fires and deliberate oil spills when regular oil production slowed down during the war, displayed less oil contamination than they had witnessed in prewar surveys of the same area. They also reported that the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—used as a marker of combustion products spewed from oil wells ignited during the war—were also relatively low, comparable to those recorded in the temperate oil producing areas of the Baltic Sea.

Which one of the following, if true, does most to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the information above?

(A) Oil contaminants have greater environmental effects in temperate regions than in desert regions.

(B) Oil contamination and PAH pollution dissipate more rapidly in temperate regions than in desert regions.

(C) Oil contamination and PAH pollution dissipate more rapidly in desert regions than in temperate regions.

(D) Peacetime oil production and transport in the Persian Gulf result in high levels of PAHs and massive oil dumping

        (E) The Persian Gulf War ended before the oil fires and spills caused as much damage as originally expected

[Ravi]

Yes you are right. The paradox is that smokey oil fires should have released PAHs into the atmosphere but the levels were relatively low. It does mention that in the sentence "used as a marker of combustion products spewed when oil is well ignited"

looking at the choices.

A : Greater environmental effects is not what we are concerned about.
B : This answers why the PAHs in the Gulf was less as opposed to temperate areas.
C : this will make the PAH in the gulf higher.
D : again says the PAH should have been higher at peace time which is opposite of what the argument says.
E : This talks about after the war ended. The surveys were prewar.

Only B stands. Notice that the passage mentions that PAH will be effectively released only when oil is well ignited. Smokey oil fires mean that they were not well ignited during the war.

--

[Ravi]

There is a confusion though. The answer may be C also because if the PAH are dissipated then, they may not show up in the surveys. The meaning of the word dissipate is to scatter. If the PAH was less scattered they will show up high in the surveys.

I changed my mind. it must be C. PAH gets dissipated rapidly in deserts which means they will show up lesser levels.

[jyothi nookula]

IMO C.
The paradox is- even though the area is subjected to hundred's of smokey fires, oil contamination and PAH levels are low. whereas they(oil contamination and PAH levels) would be expected to be high.
C talks about this factor. if they get dissipated faster, then they would be difficult to measure and hence in surveys would show less.
No other option talks about this link.

[jyothi nookula]

And Ravi, the surveys were not prewar. they compared the level of contamination in the area after the war to the level of contamination before the war.
else how can the comparison exist? If the surveys were taken prewar then how can they talk about something after the war has ended?

[Syed Mehboob]

Agree with Jyothi.... paradox shud be wht u said....

But one doubt here:

The survey reported that the PAH was low in this area than the PAH in temperate regions

Does it also say that the contamination was low in this area than the contamination in temperate regions? It does not. It says the contamination in this area was less than the contamination in the same area pre-war

Is n't it?

[Ravi]

I am sorry, i guess i didnt complete the sentence right. The PAH levels were higher in the prewar surveys that surveys today. During the war the oil was not ignited fully leading to smokey fires. So if the PAH was going to be higher post war, it will only account for it if the oil burned completely.

[Syed Mehboob]

My Approach:

Paradox question stem will usually house answer choices that explain only one side of paradox. I eliminated (A), (B) and (C) on this but I was not able to decide between (D) and (E).....

[Syed Mehboob]

I guess I got it now..... good question.....

OA is  (D) that says the concentration and PAH are high during peace time....

[Ravi]

Syed, you have to read carefully.

the first part says that the PAH levels are low in the gulf as compared to the prewar surveys.

the paradox says that even though there were smokey fires and burning of oil in gulf during the war, the PAH levels are less compared to the Baltic sea.

The question is why is contamination and PAH levels low when there was war and oil burning in the area.

D, is eliminated because it says there are high levels of PAH in Gulf, opposite of what is stated.
E, is eliminated because the argument says that prewar surveys had higher levels of PAH, war ending or not ending has no consequence. PAH is produced when ignited right. Smokey fires mean that the oil was not ignited fully.

[Ravi]

thats where i seem to have gotten confused. The oil must be ignited fully to produce PAH. Thats an important factor in the argument i guess.

[puja hait]

Just some addition:

 

Note 2 things:

at wartime
1) regular oil production slowed down during the war
2) PHA level was comparable to that of temperate oil producing areas of the Baltic Sea; ie. trying to say that equal to that of places where production itslef is low.

D explains simply that during normal times spills and PHA level is high, hence it must have been the quanity of oil production that made the differnce when combined with the above points A and B

One doubt:which is correct?

PHA level was comparable to that of temperate oil producing areas of the Baltic Sea

 

or

PHA level was comparable with that of temperate oil producing areas of the Baltic Sea

 

comparable with-for simlar things right? so here comparing oil production of both..so shudnt it be with..The question uses a to..plz explain....

[Syed Mehboob]

puja,

am baffled.... r u asking grammar Q ? or do I need a coffee break? :P

[puja hait]

Hehe..started with CR..while I was typing the explanation the grammar doubt arised...Would be glad if someone clarified...or shud i put it in a new thread?

[Syed Mehboob]

then I am still alright ;)

....will reply in detail after going home... pls gimme sm time....

[Syed Mehboob]

hey Puja,

you asked about the difference between compare to and compare with. People say that " compare to " stresses on similarity while " compare with " stresses on dissimilarities ".

I have seen at least 1000 SC questions and never found this rule really useful. I suggest that u jst doff this rule frm the list

Hope it helps,
Syed

[puja hait]

so u r suggesting that its better to stick to compare to?

[Syed Mehboob]

dnt look into the difference at all, doesnt really help in eliminating answer choices......

[puja hait]

K...thanx!