Bunuel wrote:
In South America, where pomegranate trees are not native plants, the trees' flowers have, in the past, been pollinated manually by laborers. This manual process has kept the production of pomegranate fruit unnaturally low. When a variety of snout beetle known to be effective pollinators were introduced into South America five years ago, pomegranate fruit productivity increased by nearly 40 percent, but then decreased sharply last year.
Which of the following statements would best explain last year's decrease in production?
(A) The price of pomegranate fruit fell over the past five years, following the rise in production and coinciding fall in demand.
(B) Non-native trees often produce more than native trees because the non-native ones have left behind their pests and diseases in their native lands.
(C) Rapid increases in productivity tend to deprive trees of nutrients needed for the development of the fruit-producing flowers.
(D) The snout beetle population in South America has remained at about the same level over the past five years.
(E) Before the snout beetle was introduced, another species of insect pollinated the pomegranate trees, but not as effectively as the snout beetle.
You can approach Resolve a Paradox questions in much the same way as you'd approach Strengthen/Weaken questions: focus on the conclusion (which in the case of Paradox questions will be the contrary-to-expectations ending), narrow down the answers to only those that effectively strengthen that conclusion, and then (if necessary) further narrow it down by eliminating any remaining answers that contradict or subvert the premises that led to the surprise ending.
In this case, the surprise ending is that pomegranate production fell sharply last year, despite the fact that an effective pollinator was finally on the scene, pollinating flowers with its handsome beetle snout and raising productivity by 40%. It's not usually all that helpful to try to prephrase an answer, as there will be so many possibilities for how the surprise ending might've come about: a rainless year killed all the trees, a new parasite showed up on the scene once it heard about all the free pomegranate and went to town, the snout beetle union called for a general strike... the list goes on. Instead, look to each answer choice with the surprise ending in mind, asking yourself, "Could this have caused a sharp decrease in productivity?"
(A) A fall in the price of pomegranate fruit could perhaps explain a decision on the part of pomegranate farmers/snout beetles to cultivate new, more profitable fruits, but it wouldn't necessarily do so--it could just as easily be seen as a reason to increase the production of pomegranates even more. After all, you know what hits the old pocketbook more than getting a lower price for your pomegranates? Growing fewer pomegranates and still fetching a lower price for each one. This answer is unlikely to be correct, but it's worth keeping around for now simply because it could have led to a decrease in pomegranate production.
(B) This is a classic irrelevant distinction answer. It draws a distinction between native and non-native trees, a distinction that has no bearing on the argument because the argument deals only with non-native pomegranate trees. Moreover, even if you were to ignore this irrelevance of the distinction, this answer makes it seem as though the non-native pomegranates should be more productive, not less. Eliminate this answer forever.
(C) Rapid increases in productivity is a good callback to the situation described just before the surprise ending: the introduction of the mighty snout beetle led to a 40% increase in fruit production. And if such increases in productivity deprive trees of nutrients and thus inhibit the growth of fruit-producing flowers, then it stands to reason that the pomegranate trees would soon have trouble producing fruits at all. As such, this answer explains the surprise ending without requiring extra assumptions (looking at you, (A) ) and without contradicting anything in the lead-in to that surprise ending. In fact, this answer explains the surprise ending by framing it as a consequence of the prior information in the argument, making it an ideal answer to a Resolve a Paradox question. Keep this one and cherish it forever.
(D) If the snout beetle population has remained at about the same level over the past five years, you'd have every reason to believe that the productivity would remain similarly stable. This answer, therefore, only perpetuates the paradox. If it had instead pointed to a sudden drastic decline in the snout beetle population, this answer would've been legit. Alas, it did not point to a decline in beetles, and as such it is relegated to the annals of useless, forgotten wrong answers until the end of time.
(E) This answer again makes it seem as though the introduction of the snout beetle should have led to a lasting increase in pomegranate productivity. As the increase in productivity did not last, and as this answer in no way addresses the decline, this answer is wrong, and I would imagine it's a disappointment to its mother. Eliminate.
The correct answer is (C), the answer that most directly addresses the sudden decline in productivity. Congratulations, (C): you are the snout beetle of answers.