In the below passage, based on the given information, the 4th option seemed most appropriate to explain the paradox. However, the answer was 5th option which directly contradicts theninformation highlighted in blue, provided by paragraph.
How can we choose it? What is the reasoning behind it?
Please help me understand.
Firstly, explain the following:
- What exactly is the paradox
- Why the 4th option best explains it
- Why the 5th option doesn’t best explain it
1.The last line of paragraph is the paradox asked in the questions . “Despite this effort, the rate of plane and pilot loss did not decline”.
2. 4th option explains away why there could still be loss of these both, without negating given info
3. 5th option directly contradicts whats written in the highlighted blue part from the paragraph, as I explained in the posted question
That by itself is not a paradox
Thats not explaining how, you’re just saying it does something without showing how.
It doesn’t. Please explain HOW it contradicts the blue information
The blue highlight says that the military made observation of which places/ areas of the plane are mostly targetred or attacked based on the bullet hole patterns. That is the vulnerable areas, and hence reinforced them. This was my understanding.
Now the given answer is cotnradicting because it is saying the vulnerable areas are ignored. How?
Thanks, I understand your confusion now. It’s to do with the wording of the sentence.
I believe the sentence is saying:
They picked the planes they thought would be the most damaged and applied the plating on those planes
The way you are interpreting it is:
They looked at the planes and applied the plating on the surfaces of the plane which they thought would get the most damage
Am I understanding that correctly?
Yes. I understood so because in the first sentence itself they say that the engineers examind the returning planes and noted the areas and not the plane models that were damaged. Next based on this examination they made reinforcements. So it means that they protected vulnerable areas of all planes.
Even if that was the case, it doesn’t mean they were accurate in their assumptions. Maybe they got it wrong about which places would be most likely to suffer damage. It doesn’t necessarily contradict statement 5
By that logic, every option is true.
I explained my thought process.
I would like to understand why 4 is incorrect but 5 i s correct . It would be helpful for me if you could explain the reasoning for the given answer please
OK so the paradox here is that they equipped planes with armor, but at the same time, the amount of debts did not change.
So the first option is saying that they put the arm plating on the parts of the plane which will least vulnerable. This means that the parts of the plane where they were not shot with bullets. If this was true, then what this means is that the plane is still getting shot at places where there are no armour this makes sense that the number of planes getting destroyed and the number of people dying hasn’t decreased at all.