How the question was stated confused me, but I learned the method and wanted to check if it was the correct approach for these types of questions.
When I read the question, “Most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy,” is it okay to always assume the question is not asking you to help FIX the discrepency instead it only ask to help EXPLAIN the discrepancy.
At first reading the question, I assumed it asked me to fix the discrepancy, which led me to answer A
BTW this is an LSAT question. Will the GRE ever have this problem for me? Where reading it could be a headache.
At the same time, maybe my literacy is failing me, if so, please explain so I can rewire my approach.
I believe the discrepancy is that because the Government is so good at removing counterfeit bills from the population, banks and merchants do not check the bills as hard. Since the government is so good at it already.
And I thought that to fix the discrepancy due to the word “resolve” it would be for the government to push banks and merchants to check for counterfeit bills more thoroughly.
Which I assumed was close to what A is trying to convey
I apologize if my wording for the question is weirdly said, but I thought the question was trying to say “How do you reduce the discrepency” aka “resolve” the discrepency
I did not pick C at first because C was explaining the discrepancy. And apparently that was actually what the question was asking for due to how Greg explained it.
ah, that’s the issue. The discrepancy, or paradox, or illogical situation, for this question type, is always two things that seemingly cannot both be true.
The govt is good at preventing counterfeiting YET the bad guys can still do it.
Once you get that straight, you don’t need to worry about resolve vs. fix - just think of
