Free Courses › Logical Reasoning

Harder reasoning · Lesson 12 of 14

Resolve the paradox questions

After this lesson, you can identify a resolve the paradox stimulus and pick the answer choice that explains how both conflicting facts can be true at once.

5 min video, plus notes and 1 practice question below

In this lesson

• Spot a resolve the paradox stimulus by its shape: two facts that seem to conflict, with no argument or conclusion to evaluate
• Name the paradox in your own words before you touch the answer choices, so you know exactly what you're hunting for
• Prephrase 1 or 2 possible causes for the unexpected result before you read the choices
• Reject the 4 common wrong answer types: irrelevant details, answers that address only one side of the paradox, distorted facts or timelines, and answers that deepen the conflict instead of resolving it
• Carry this gap-finding skill into strengthen, weaken, and necessary assumption questions, since they test the same underlying move

Spot the shape of a resolve the paradox question before you read the choices

A resolve the paradox stimulus doesn't give you an argument to break down. There's no conclusion to find and no premises to weigh. Instead, you get 2 facts that seem to contradict each other, and the question stem asks you to resolve, explain, or reconcile the apparent paradox.

Take a bakery that slashes the price of its best selling cake by 30% to attract more customers. It expects lines out the door, but instead of boosting sales, its profits actually drop. Or picture a top rated restaurant that suddenly starts pulling in terrible reviews. In both cases you have 2 facts sitting next to each other that don't seem to add up, and your job is to find the missing piece that makes both of them true at the same time.

Learning to spot this shape fast matters. Once you recognize you're not looking at an argument, you stop wasting time hunting for a conclusion that isn't there, and you can move straight into the 4-step process below.

Why this skill pays off beyond this one question type

The moves you practice here, identifying a gap and weighing alternative explanations against each other, carry straight into strengthen questions, weaken questions, and necessary assumption questions. All 4 question types ask you to reason about what's missing from a set of facts or a claim, just from different angles.

This is also the kind of thinking lawyers use every day: analyzing evidence, spotting the explanation that actually fits the facts, and building a case for why one account is stronger than another. Getting comfortable with resolve the paradox questions builds a skill you'll lean on well past test day.

Step 1: name the paradox in plain terms

Before you look at a single answer choice, pin down what people expected to happen versus what actually happened. For the bakery, the expectation was that lower prices would attract more customers and raise profits. What actually happened is that profits dropped. Stating that gap in your own words keeps you anchored once the answer choices start throwing details at you.

Step 2: prephrase possible explanations

Once you've named the paradox, think of 1 or 2 causes on your own before reading the choices. For the bakery, maybe the lower price only attracted bargain hunters who bought the discounted cake instead of higher margin items, the way deep discount deals sometimes worked out for merchants in the past. Or maybe production costs went up because the bakery had to buy pricier ingredients to meet the surge in demand, since its regular supplier couldn't handle the higher volume.

Walking in with an explanation already in mind means you can recognize the right answer fast instead of getting talked into a choice that only sounds plausible. You're not trying to guess the exact wording of the correct answer, just the general shape of what would explain the outcome.

Steps 3 and 4: test each choice, then rule out the traps

For every answer choice, ask whether it explains how both facts could still be true at the same time. An answer that only accounts for half the paradox isn't strong enough, even if it sounds related to the topic and uses familiar language from the stimulus.

Watch for 4 traps. First, irrelevant details that don't touch the core conflict at all. Second, answers that address only one side of the paradox and ignore the other. Third, answers that distort a key detail or the timeline of events described in the stimulus. Fourth, answers that actually deepen the paradox or confuse the situation instead of resolving it. Run through all 4 traps on every choice before you commit, even the one you're leaning toward.

The short version

• If you catch yourself hunting for a conclusion or a flaw in a resolve-the-paradox stimulus, stop, there isn't one. Redirect straight to naming the gap between the 2 facts.
• If you're unsure what you're even looking for, you skipped step 1. Go back and state the gap in one sentence.
• Log which trap catches you most on missed paradox questions: one-sided answers, distorted timelines, or answers that just deepen the conflict instead of resolving it. Most people fall for the same one twice.

Mark lesson 12 complete