Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
McGraw 4.2 - Coggle Diagram
McGraw 4.2
IV.Sample Questions and Explanations
Broken Bones Paradox:
Squib: Most broken bones need treatment to heal properly, but some doctors recommend no treatment for certain appendages
Question: Explain the paradox
Correct Answer (A): Some bones heal better untreated (eg, foot bones)
Traps: Irrelevant surgery focus (C), patient preferences (D), affordability (E)
Colombian Rainforest Depletion:
Squib: Scientists predict faster rainforest depletion than survey data suggests
Question: Reconcile scientists’ claims with survey findings
Correct Answer (B): Future technologies accelerate depletion, unaccounted for in survey
Traps: Hypothetical scenarios (D), irrelevant industries (E)
Marble Ice Sales:
Squib: Marble Ice is preferred in the US but has low global sales
Question: Explain the discrepancy
Correct Answer (E): US preferences differ from global ones
Traps: Contradictory (B), insufficient (D)
Green Beans Height:
Squib: Dominant traits produce long green beans, but Sam’s beans are always short
Question: Explain why Sam’s beans are short
Correct Answer (D): Sam cross-breeds beans with recessive short trait
Traps: Irrelevant preferences (B), unrelated beans (C)
Blood Type Paradox:
Squib: Type O parents typically produce type O children, but a couple’s fourth child has type A
Question: Explain the anomaly
Correct Answer (B): Non-type O parents can produce type O children
Traps: Irrelevant neighbor (A), season of birth (C)
Organic Fertilizers:
Squib: Organic fertilizers restore nutrients but sometimes harm crops
Question: Resolve the unexpected harm
Correct Answer (A): High acid content in fresh fertilizers harms crops
Traps: Vague mistakes (B), excessive application assumption (E)
Artificial Sweeteners:
Squib: Artificial sweeteners avoid sugar’s calories, but fitness experts oppose them
Question: Explain the opposition
Correct Answer (C): Sweeteners have worse health effects than sugar
Traps: Job security (A), sugar benefits (B)
Seatbelt Injuries:
Squib: Seatbelts reduce fatalities but cause specific injuries, prompting a ban recommendation
Question: Explain why seatbelts should be kept
Correct Answer (D): Seatbelts prevent greater injuries despite causing some
Traps: Unrelated injuries (A), government mandates (E)
White Tigers Hunting:
Squib: White tigers, less camouflaged in new habitats, catch more prey
Question: Explain the discrepancy
Correct Answer (B): Prey don’t recognize tigers as predators yet
Traps: Irrelevant genetics (A), insufficient camouflage (D)
III. Answer Choice Patterns
Correct Answer: Directly resolves the paradox by explaining why the expected outcome didn’t occur
Second-Best Choice:
Explains one part of the squib but not the full discrepancy
Offers a possible but less precise explanation
Clearly Wrong Answers:
Irrelevant to the squib’s conflict
Moral/emotional appeals unrelated to logic
Contradict the squib’s premise or outcome
V. Strategies for Success
Identify the Paradox: Pinpoint the conflicting facts or unexpected outcome
Focus on Relevance: Choose answers that directly address the squib’s discrepancy
Avoid Traps: Eliminate choices that are irrelevant, hypothetical, or contradict the squib
Test Answer Fit: Ensure the answer logically resolves the paradox without introducing new issues
I. Introduction to Resolve Questions
Purpose: Explain a discrepancy, paradox, or unexpected outcome in a squib (short passage)
Squib Structure: Presents conflicting facts, opposing opinions, or unusual events requiring resolution
Example Squib (Patriot Act):
Context: 2001 Patriot Act expanded police search powers to reduce terrorism
Paradox: Terrorism incidents increased fourfold despite the Act
Question Stem: "Which, if true, explains why the Act did not decrease terrorism?"
Correct Answers: Explain the failure (eg, increased terrorism attempts, Act repealed, police non-use)
Incorrect Answers: Unrelated to terrorism/Act or imply Act’s success (opposite of squib)
II. Characteristics of Resolve Questions
Squib Length: Typically 3-5 sentences, presenting a conflict or paradox
Question Stem Types:
"Which, if true, best explains the discrepancy/paradox?"
"Which, if true, accounts for the unexpected finding?"
Common Traps:
Answers unrelated to the squib’s issue
Answers eliciting moral reactions but lacking logical relevance
Answers contradicting the squib (eg, implying the opposite effect)