PrepTest 120, Section 1, Question 6
Recent investigations of earthquakes have turned up a(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- ADisplacement pulses travel(8 more words not shown)
- BScientific predictions based(10 more words not shown)
- CWhile displacement pulses(14 more words not shown)
- DThe displacement pulses(17 more words not shown)
- EComputer models have(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why aren't the high-rises badly damaged? The computer models say they're especially vulnerable to a shock believed to occur in every earthquake, yet the buildings examined after powerful earthquakes have little significant damage.
Maybe the buildings were designed with earthquakes in mind. Imagine a building in San Francisco built to withstand shaking. It could survive a shock that would badly damage an otherwise similar building without that protection. Or perhaps the pulses don't have enough force to produce the expected damage. We need some explanation of the gap between the prediction and what investigators found.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to help resolve that apparent paradox. My first guess is that something about the buildings protects them. Whatever the answer says, keep the actual puzzle in view: why does the predicted vulnerability fail to show up as substantial damage?
Working the answers
- A
Traveling farther doesn't explain why the high-rises escaped significant damage. It tells us more about how far a pulse can reach, not why a building reached by that pulse would fare better than the models suggest.
- BCorrect
This takes a different route from the reinforced-building prediction: perhaps the models don't accurately predict what happens outside the computer. The vulnerability comes from computer models, while the lack of damage comes from examining real buildings. If predictions based on such models often fail in the field, that gives us a reason the two results might differ. B doesn't prove that these particular models are wrong; it helps explain the discrepancy.
- C
Discovering a pulse recently doesn't mean it only recently started occurring. This reinforces that distinction, but it doesn't explain the buildings' condition. If the pulses accompanied the earthquakes under discussion, we still need to know why the predicted damage didn't appear.
- D
The buildings were examined after powerful earthquakes, not merely low- or medium-intensity ones. Learning that weaker earthquakes produce weaker pulses doesn't explain why these buildings escaped damage after strong earthquakes. It doesn't give us the protection or prediction error we're looking for.
- E
Success with other kinds of shock doesn't explain a failed prediction about displacement pulses. Those earlier models could be accurate while the model for this newly discovered shock misses something. E gives us a reason models might be useful in general, but no resolution of this particular mismatch.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.