Rank 6 by frequency | 316 questions in corpus (7.0% of all questions)
Resolve the Discrepancy questions (also called Paradox or Explain) present two facts that seem contradictory or surprising when taken together, then ask which answer choice best explains how both facts can be true simultaneously. There is no argument to evaluate — instead, there is a puzzle to solve. The stimulus contains NO conclusion, NO premises-to-conclusion reasoning, only facts in tension.
Resolve the Discrepancy is structurally unique among LR question types. Unlike Weaken, Strengthen, Flaw, or Assumption stimuli, a Resolve stimulus contains no argument: no conclusion is drawn, no premises support a claim, and there is no reasoning to evaluate. The stimulus consists entirely of facts and observations that appear to be in tension with one another.
Both facts are accepted as true — neither can be denied. Your task is not to dispute the stimulus; it is to supply the missing context that makes both facts simultaneously understandable. There is no argumentative gap here. Instead, there is an information gap — a missing piece that, once supplied, reconciles what looked contradictory.
The skill being tested is your ability to reconcile apparently conflicting information by identifying a hidden factor, mechanism, or distinction that makes both observations compatible. After reading the correct answer, the reader should think: "Oh, THAT's why both things are true."
Every Resolve stimulus follows a two-fact architecture. Fact 1 presents one aspect of a situation, trend, or finding. Fact 2 presents a second statement that appears to CONTRADICT or be INCONSISTENT with Fact 1, or presents a SURPRISING outcome given Fact 1. The discrepancy is the apparent tension between them — and both facts are presented as true.
LSAC creates the appearance of contradiction through four main devices. Expectation violation: Fact 1 creates an expectation; Fact 2 shows the opposite ("City X implemented strict recycling. However, total waste increased."). Trend contradiction: two trends that should move together move in opposite directions. Co-existence of seeming opposites: two mutually exclusive things both exist. Statistical surprise: a finding contradicts common sense or previously stated data.
These stimuli fall into two broad categories. Category A — Explicit Paradox: two statements directly create a clear contradiction. Category B — Surprise Result / Unexpected Outcome: expected facts contrast with a counterintuitive outcome. In Category B the contradiction is often between the stated finding and the reader's expected result rather than between two explicit facts — but the resolution task is the same.
A valid resolution has a specific architecture. It introduces a new fact not stated in the stimulus. It bridges both sides — making Fact 1 AND Fact 2 simultaneously understandable. It does NOT contradict any information in the stimulus. It is accepted as true per the "if true" clause in the stem. And it often uses strong wording for decisiveness.
Resolutions typically take one of seven strategic shapes. A hidden third factor explains why both facts coexist. A definition or scope clarification reveals that the two facts use a term differently or apply to different subsets. A temporal explanation shows that the timing of events resolves the contradiction. A behavioral or motivational explanation uses human psychology to explain the paradox. A baseline shift reveals that the denominator changed, making raw numbers misleading. A selection bias explanation shows that the populations being compared are fundamentally different. A side effect or unintended consequence shows that the action in Fact 1 caused Fact 2 through an indirect mechanism.
The most critical rule: the correct answer must be compatible with ALL facts in the stimulus. The most common test-taker error is choosing an answer that contradicts a detail the test-taker overlooked.
Resolve questions appear in five recognizable subtypes. The underlying task is the same, but stem wording and stimulus construction shift slightly.
Variation 1 — Standard Resolve the Paradox. Two clearly stated contradictory facts — the most common form. Stem: "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict described above?"
Variation 2 — Explain the Phenomenon. A SINGLE surprising finding. The contradiction is between the stated finding and the reader's expected result, rather than between two explicit facts. Stem: "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the finding described above?"
Variation 3 — Resolve EXCEPT. Four answers resolve; one does NOT. Cross out any answer that resolves even slightly. The correct answer does nothing to explain the tension, or makes it worse. Stem: "Each of the following, if true, helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy EXCEPT:"
Variation 4 — Reconcile Two Claims. Two positions from different sources presented as incompatible. Stem: "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the experts' belief with the apparently contrary evidence?"
Variation 5 — Account For. Functionally identical to Explain the Phenomenon. Stem: "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to account for the situation described above?"
By rough frequency, the underlying discrepancy structures break down into: Action/Policy + Unexpected Result (~35%) — an action was taken but the expected outcome didn't materialize; two trends moving opposite directions — metrics that should correlate move inversely; surprising statistical finding — a statistic defies common sense; behavior contradicting stated preference — people say X but do Y; effectiveness paradox — something that should work better performs worse (or vice versa); and historical or archaeological puzzle — evidence from the past seems contradictory.
A consistent method works for every variation. The governing principle: identify the two facts in tension BEFORE you touch the answer choices.
Step 1 — Read the stem first to identify Resolve/Reconcile/Explain — you want to know you're in puzzle-solving mode before the stimulus primes you otherwise.
Step 2 — Read the stimulus looking for the TWO facts in tension, NOT for a conclusion. If you find yourself looking for an argument to evaluate, you've miscategorized the question.
Step 3 — Identify Fact 1 and Fact 2 explicitly. Name them in your own words. This step prevents you from focusing on the wrong tension — a common error on stimuli with multiple interlocking facts.
Step 4 — Articulate the discrepancy as a question: "Why is Fact 1 true EVEN THOUGH Fact 2 is also true?" This phrasing forces you to hold both facts in mind and rules out one-sided explanations.
Step 5 — Prephrase possible explanations before reading the answers. You don't need to predict the exact correct answer, just to prime your thinking with plausible resolution shapes.
Step 6 — Evaluate each answer by accepting it as true and asking: "Does this explain how BOTH facts can be true simultaneously?" An answer that explains only one side is wrong no matter how elegant the explanation.
Step 7 — Eliminate systematically. Order of attack: one-sided answers first, then answers that contradict the stimulus, then irrelevant answers, then answers that make the paradox worse.
Step 8 — For remaining contenders, pick the one that MOST COMPLETELY resolves the tension. Partial resolutions can slip through; reward the answer that accounts for as much of the stimulus as possible.
Step 9 — Final check: reread the chosen answer with both facts in mind and confirm it doesn't contradict anything in the stimulus.
Wrong answers cluster into seven recognizable shapes. The first one is by far the most common.
Trap 1 — Explains only one side (MOST COMMON TRAP). Provides a reason for Fact 1 OR Fact 2, but does not bridge the gap between them. Defense: after choosing an answer, verbally check both facts against it.
Trap 2 — Makes the paradox worse. Introduces information that deepens rather than resolves the contradiction.
Trap 3 — Contradicts the stimulus. Directly denies one of the stated facts. Immediate elimination — both facts must remain true in any valid resolution.
Trap 4 — Irrelevant. Discusses something unrelated to the core tension. Often topical but logically beside the point.
Trap 5 — Restates the paradox. Paraphrases the problem without offering a solution.
Trap 6 — 180 (reversal). Goes completely the wrong direction — making the discrepancy sharper rather than softer.
Trap 7 — Addresses a different discrepancy. Resolves tension between facts that aren't the CORE discrepancy. Especially dangerous when the stimulus contains multiple pairs of facts in mild tension.
Six features drive difficulty on Resolve questions, and LSAC combines them on the hardest versions.
Subtle discrepancy. Facts seem mildly surprising rather than starkly contradictory — making the tension hard to locate in the first place. Attractive one-sided answer. A wrong answer brilliantly explains one side but not both; its quality on one side tempts test-takers to stop checking the other. Correct answer requires "creative" reasoning. The resolution involves an unexpected mechanism that doesn't leap to mind on a first read. Detail-dependent traps. Wrong answers NEARLY resolve but subtly contradict a small stimulus detail — a number, a timeline, a scope limitation. Multiple plausible explanations. Several answers seem to help; distinguishing requires careful evaluation of which MOST COMPLETELY resolves. Stimulus misdirection. Background information makes it harder to isolate the two facts actually in tension.
Resolve questions share the "if true" stem construction with Strengthen and Weaken, but the underlying task is completely different. The best way to distinguish is to look at the stimulus structure, not the stem alone.
vs. Weaken and Strengthen. Weaken and Strengthen stimuli always contain an argument — a conclusion supported by premises — and the answer damages or supports that conclusion. Resolve stimuli contain NO argument: no conclusion, only facts in tension. The answer doesn't attack or bolster anything; it explains.
Four quick diagnostics distinguish Resolve from Weaken/Strengthen: (1) Check for an argument — no conclusion being argued for = likely Resolve. (2) Check the stem for keywords like resolve, reconcile, explain, account for paired with paradox, discrepancy, conflict. (3) Check the stimulus feeling — Resolve feels like a puzzle ("how can BOTH be true?"); Weaken/Strengthen feels like a debate ("is this conclusion well-supported?"). (4) Both facts are fully accepted — in Resolve, you never doubt either fact.
vs. Flaw. Flaw stimuli contain an argument with a reasoning error, and the answer describes that error. Resolve stimuli contain no argument and therefore no flaw to describe. Different cognitive task entirely.
vs. Inference. Inference stimuli are fact sets from which you derive a new conclusion. Resolve stimuli are fact sets from which you supply an explanatory bridge. Inference asks "what follows?"; Resolve asks "what would explain this?"
Every Resolve question uses one of the stems below. Recognizing them immediately cues the puzzle-solving mode: find the two facts, articulate the tension, look for a bridge.