This is a Paradox question, in which you are asked to explain a discrepancy presented in the stimulus. But it's a BIZARRO question, which means that 4 of the answers do explain the discrepancy, and 1 does not. The 1 that does not is the correct answer.
First let's assess the stimulus to be sure that we understand the paradox it presents. On the one hand, you are told that the average literate person today spends significantly less time reading than the average literate person did 50 years ago. On the other hand, you are told that many more books are sold per year now than were sold 50 years ago.
This seems odd, right? Why are more books being sold, if on average readers are spending less time reading?
Let's look at each answer choice. (A): the population of literate people is significant larger today than it was 50 years ago. Would this explain the discrepancy? Yes. If there is a larger NUMBER of readers, then even if EACH reader is spending less time on average reading, the total amount of reading happening has gone up. Because this is a Bizarro question, it is not the correct answer (because it does help to resolve the apparent discrepancy).
(B): people who read books 50 years ago were more likely to read books borrowed from libraries than are people who read books today. Would this explain the discrepancy? Yes. If fewer people today are using libraries (and are instead buying their books), this might explain why many more books are sold per year now than were 50 years ago, even if the average reader is spending less time reading. Because this is a Bizarro question, it is not the correct answer (because it does help to resolve the apparent discrepancy).
(C): the average scholar or other person who uses books professionally today owns and consults many more different books than did the average scholar or similar professional 50 years ago. Would this explain the discrepancy? Yes. If today's scholars/similar professionals own many more different books than their counterparts did, on average, 50 years ago, this too might explain why many more books are sold per year now than were 50 years ago, even if the average reader is spending less time reading. Because this is a Bizarro question, it is not the correct answer (because it does help to resolve the apparent discrepancy).
(D): people of 50 years ago were more likely than people are today to display large collections of books as a sign of education and good taste. Does this explain the discrepancy? NO. If people were more likely to display large collections of books 50 years ago, then they'd likely buy and own more books (so as to build large display collections) than today. This does not explain the discrepancy in the stimulus - it makes it worse. Because this is a Bizarro question, THIS IS CORRECT.
(E): books sold now tend to be shorter and easier to read than were books sold 50 years ago. Would this explain the discrepancy? Yes. If today's books are shorter, and easier to read, than books sold 50 years ago, this would explain why many more books are sold per year now, even though the average literate person today is spending significantly less time reading today. Because this is a Bizarro question, it is not the correct answer (because it does help to resolve the apparent discrepancy).
Hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
