Bunuel
Like animals, trees need a steady supply of water in order to survive. When forests go for periods of several months without rainfall, many trees die from lack of hydration. However forests that are primarily populated by Sequoia sempervirens can go for several months without rainfall and not see a significant decline in the number of living trees.Which of the following, if true, would explain the paradox above?A. The roots of Sequoia sempervirens extend deeper and more broadly than the roots of other species, making them less likely to fall than other trees.B. Sequoia sempervirens tend to grow primarily in areas that are not susceptible to long periods without rainfall.C. Sequoia sempervirens are among the tallest trees in the world, providing access to regular direct sunlight even in crowded forests.D. Many trees, including Sequoia sempervirens, are vulnerable to tipping over via wind when their bases become unstableE. As some of the tallest trees in the world, Sequoia sempervirens evolved to absorb moisture from the air through their leaves.
VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:
In this Explain the Paradox question, your job is to connect two seemingly paradoxical facts: generally when forests go months without rainfall, many trees in that forest die, but forests that are primarily Sequoia sempervirens don't see that same phenomenon. So you need to find a reason why Sequoia sempervirens are different.
A clue can be found in the first sentence of the stimulus: the reason that many trees die without sufficient rainfall is that trees need a steady supply of water to survive. So one type of answer to anticipate is one that supplies a water supply that doesn't require rainfall: what if their roots ran in to riverbanks, or their forests were all located within federally-maintained parks, for example? Choice (E) supplies such a reason: Sequoia sempervirens can absorb moisture from the air, so they can get their water supply even when it doesn't rain. Choice (E) is therefore correct.
Among the other answer choices, note that (A) and (D) are each outside the scope of the argument, which is about trees dying from lack of rainfall - (A) and
(D) talk about reasons that Sequoia sempervirens wouldn't die from tipping over, but that's not what the argument is about.
(C) is similar, providing a reason that Sequoia sempervirens wouldn't die from lack of sunlight, but again that's not the cause-of-death in question as this argument is only talking about why it's surprising that Sequoia sempervirens wouldn't die from lack of rainfall.
Choice (D) is incorrect because the given facts already state that they're talking about the cases when Sequoia sempervirens forests do suffer from lack of rainfall. (D) says that that's a limited occurrence, but the given information already accounts for that by limiting to the handful of cases when these forests do not see rain for several months.