A survey of a city's concertgoers found that almost all of them were dissatisfied with the local concert hall. A larg...

Annie on May 12, 2020

Hi @shafieiava,

This question asks you to pick the answer choice which "most helps explain" the apparent conflict in the concertgoers' views. Essentially, this means you are looking for another premise which makes the apparent conflict not actually a conflict.

Before turning to the answer choices, you could brainstorm ideas that may explain this apparent conflict. The first thing I thought of was that maybe the concert hall is historic, so people oppose tearing it down and think the historic value is worth more than the value of better acoustics.

Answer (A) is incorrect because it doesn't help solve the conflict in the concertgoers' views. Being told that the survey was being sponsored by a group that advocates replacing the concert hall in theory could make the people answering the survey opposed to replacing the concert hall. But, it certainly doesn't have to have that effect. There's no reason this information would explain why they don't want the concert hall torn down.

Answer (D) on the other hand explains why the seeming conflict is actually not a conflict. The concertgoers' want bigger seats and better acoustics and know that they are going to get both of those in the new concert hall that will be built nearby. So, the concertgoers don't care that the old one isn't being renovated, as they already have a new one on the way.

shunhe on May 12, 2020

Hi @shafieiava,

Thanks for the question! Let’s walk through this argument first. We’re told that a survey was conducted on concertgoers, who are generally dissatisfied with a local concert hall. They want wider seats and better acoustics. They also know that the old concert hall can’t be modified, yet for some reason, they oppose the idea of tearing down the existing structure and replacing it with a concert hall that they would prefer.

The question then asks us what most helps to explain the apparent conflict in these views. In other words, this is going to be a paradox question. So let’s take a look at (A) and see if it helps us reconcile these two views. (A) tells us that before survey questions were asked, respondents were informed that the survey was sponsored by a group that advocates replacing the existing concert hall. But why would this make the concertgoers oppose replacing the existing concert hall? Just because the survey was sponsored by people who supported replacing it wouldn’t make the survey respondents oppose taking it—we’d have to assume that it was because of that group that survey respondents opposed tearing it down, and that doesn’t really make sense, especially when compared to (D).

(D) tells us that the city government has a well-publicized plan that would convert the hall into an auditorium and build a new concert hall nearby. If this is the case, that would explain this paradox. If the concert hall were torn down and replaced with another one, the survey respondents would be left with two concert halls! They’re going to get another concert hall anyway, so there’s no need to tear down this one. And this plan is well-publicized, so the public would know about it. And if there’s no need to tear down the hall, then it makes more sense that people would be opposed to tearing it down, and allow an auditorium to be built there.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

shafieiava on May 16, 2020

Thank you for the double explanations!