Resolve a Contradiction - LSAT Reading

Addresses only one fact. Must reconcile both facts, not just explain one.

A scope shift (time/place/group) that makes both claims compatible. Different contexts allow both statements to be true.

Qualifiers such as “some,” “often,” “in certain contexts,” or “earlier”. These limit statements to specific conditions where both can be true.

One that introduces a plausible hidden variable. Hidden factors explain apparent contradictions.

An option that strengthens one side while leaving the conflict intact. This makes one claim stronger but doesn't reconcile the contradiction.

Explain how both can be true. Resolution preserves both statements rather than refuting one.

More people began driving, offsetting congestion while some routes became faster. Individual gains can coexist with overall worsening.

Costs increased enough to outweigh the higher revenue. Higher costs can eliminate profits despite revenue gains.

The real-world patients differ from trial subjects or use the drug incorrectly. Real-world conditions differ from controlled trial settings.

The date reflects copying of an older text with later marginal additions. Later additions to older texts explain anachronistic references.

The species is active outside survey times or in unsampled microhabitats. Survey limitations miss actual abundance patterns.

A new cause or contextual fact that reconciles the two claims. New information explains the apparent conflict without denying either claim.

Select the choice that explains how both facts can be true. The goal is finding how seemingly incompatible facts coexist.

Add a reconciling fact that makes the apparent conflict disappear. Adding context resolves contradictions; attacking facts creates new problems.

A single sentence stating Claim A and Claim B cannot both hold. Clearly state why the claims seem mutually exclusive.

A choice that restates one side without reconciling the conflict. Watch for choices that explain only one side.

A surprising result is unexpected; a contradiction is seemingly impossible. Contradictions seem logically impossible until resolved.

Assume it is true and check that it makes both claims jointly plausible. If true, the answer should make both claims sensible together.

One that introduces a new contradiction or conflicts with the passage. Creating new problems doesn't solve the original contradiction.

A larger population base makes the rate fall while the count rises. Rate = count/population; population growth explains this pattern.

A small number of large increases raised the mean despite many decreases. Outliers can skew averages even when most values drop.

Improved reporting or awareness increased complaints despite better outcomes. Better detection often reveals more problems to report.

However. Contrast words signal opposing claims to reconcile.

The trial population or dosage differed from the conditions where it works. Different test conditions explain different results.

More visitors entered for free or via memberships despite fewer paid tickets. Non-ticket entry methods explain the crowd-sales gap.

Increased monitoring or habitat concentration raised sightings despite decline. Better observation methods find more of fewer animals.

Other pollution sources rose or weather trapped pollutants despite lower emissions. Multiple factors affect air quality beyond one source.

Eliminate it; the correct answer must be consistent with the passage. Answers must work within the passage's established facts.

A few very high scores raised the average despite many declines. Outliers skew averages despite majority decline.