Rank 6 by frequency | 316 questions in corpus (7.0% of all questions)
A Resolve the Discrepancy (also called Paradox or Explain) question presents two facts that seem contradictory or surprising when taken together, then asks 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. This is structurally unique among LR question types: it contains NO argument, NO conclusion, and NO premises-to-conclusion reasoning. The stimulus consists entirely of facts/observations in tension.
Identify the answer choice that is the most plausible explanation for why two seemingly contradictory facts coexist. The correct answer must bridge BOTH sides of the discrepancy, not just explain one.
Your ability to reconcile apparently conflicting information by identifying a hidden factor, mechanism, or distinction that makes both observations compatible. Both facts are accepted as true – neither can be denied.
1. Fact 1: A statement presenting one aspect of a situation, trend, or finding. 2. Fact 2: A second statement that appears to CONTRADICT or be INCONSISTENT with Fact 1, or presents a SURPRISING outcome given Fact 1. 3. The Discrepancy: The apparent tension between Fact 1 and Fact 2. Both facts are presented as true.
Unlike Weaken and Strengthen stimuli, Resolve the Discrepancy stimuli contain NO argument: - No conclusion is drawn - No premises support a claim - There is no "reasoning" to evaluate - The stimulus consists entirely of facts/observations that appear to be in tension - Both facts are accepted as true – neither can be denied
LSAC creates the appearance of contradiction through: - 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
There is no argumentative gap. Instead, there is an information gap – a missing piece of context that, once supplied, makes both facts simultaneously understandable. The correct answer provides this missing context.
Category A: Explicit Paradox – Two statements directly create a clear contradiction.
Category B: Surprise Result / Unexpected Outcome – Expected facts contrast with a counterintuitive outcome.
1. Introduces a new fact not stated in the stimulus 2. Bridges both sides – makes Fact 1 AND Fact 2 simultaneously understandable 3. Does NOT contradict any information in the stimulus 4. Accepted as true per "if true" clause 5. Often uses strong wording for decisiveness 6. After reading it, the reader should think: "Oh, THAT's why both things are true."
| Strategy | How It Works | |———-|————-| | Hidden third factor | A previously unknown factor explains why both facts coexist | | Definition/scope clarification | The two facts use a term differently or apply to different subsets | | Temporal explanation | The timing of events explains the contradiction | | Behavioral/motivational explanation | Human behavior or motivation explains the paradox | | Baseline shift | The denominator changed, making raw numbers misleading | | Selection bias explanation | The populations being compared are fundamentally different | | Side effect / unintended consequence | The action in Fact 1 caused Fact 2 through an indirect mechanism |
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 2. Makes the Paradox Worse: Introduces information that deepens rather than resolves the contradiction 3. Contradicts the Stimulus: Directly denies one of the stated facts. Immediate elimination 4. Irrelevant: Discusses something unrelated to the core tension 5. Restates the Paradox: Paraphrases the problem without offering a solution 6. 180 (Reversal): Goes completely the wrong direction 7. Addresses a Different Discrepancy: Resolves tension between facts that aren't the CORE discrepancy
1. Action/Policy + Unexpected Result (~35%): An action was taken but the expected outcome didn't materialize 2. Two Trends Moving Opposite Directions: Metrics that should correlate move inversely 3. Surprising Statistical Finding: A statistic defies common sense 4. Behavior Contradicting Stated Preference: People say X but do Y 5. Effectiveness Paradox: Something that should work better performs worse (or vice versa) 6. Historical/Archaeological Puzzle: Evidence from the past seems contradictory
1. Hidden variable / third factor (most common) 2. Different populations or subsets being compared 3. Temporal explanation (timing, sequence, delay) 4. Behavioral compensation or unintended consequence 5. Definition or measurement difference 6. Baseline/denominator change
1. Subtle discrepancy: Facts seem mildly surprising rather than starkly contradictory 2. Attractive one-sided answer: A wrong answer brilliantly explains one side but not both 3. Correct answer requires "creative" reasoning: The resolution involves an unexpected mechanism 4. Detail-dependent traps: Wrong answers NEARLY resolve but subtly contradict a small stimulus detail 5. Multiple plausible explanations: Several answers seem to help; distinguishing requires careful evaluation 6. Stimulus misdirection: Background information makes it harder to isolate the two facts in tension
The correct answer must be compatible with ALL facts in the stimulus. The most common error is choosing an answer that contradicts a detail the test-taker overlooked.
| Feature | Resolve | Weaken | Strengthen | Flaw | |———|———|——–|———–|——| | Stimulus | Two conflicting FACTS (no argument) | ARGUMENT (premises + conclusion) | ARGUMENT | ARGUMENT | | Contains conclusion? | NO | YES | YES | YES | | Answer does | Explains how both facts coexist | Damages the argument | Supports the argument | Describes the error | | New info? | YES | YES | YES | NO |
1. Check for an argument: No conclusion being argued for = likely Resolve 2. Check the stem: "resolve," "reconcile," "explain," "account for" + "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
1. Read the stem first to identify Resolve/Reconcile/Explain 2. Read the stimulus looking for the TWO facts in tension (NOT a conclusion) 3. Identify Fact 1 and Fact 2 explicitly 4. Articulate the discrepancy as a question: "Why is Fact 1 true EVEN THOUGH Fact 2 is also true?" 5. Prephrase possible explanations before reading answers 6. Evaluate each answer: Accept as true. "Does this explain how BOTH facts can be true simultaneously?" 7. Eliminate systematically: one-sided > contradicts stimulus > irrelevant > makes paradox worse 8. For remaining contenders: pick the one that MOST COMPLETELY resolves the tension 9. Final check: reread chosen answer with both facts in mind. Confirm it doesn't contradict anything
Source: PT49, Section 2, Question 2
Stimulus: Statistical studies show the greatest drop in violent crime rate in a year. But public anxiety about violent crime substantially increased during the same period.
Source: PT13, Section 4, Question 2
Stimulus: The company that produces XYZ spreadsheet software estimates millions of illegally reproduced copies are in use. Despite company-wide efforts to boost sales, the company has NOT taken available legal measures to prosecute illegal copiers.
Source: PT53, Section 3, Question 22
Stimulus: Average books read per capita has declined for three years. However, most bookstores reported increased profits during the same period.