Recent investigations of earthquakes have

Answer choices

1. A

   No Distinction8% picked this

   Displacement pulses travel longer distances than other types of

   This is distinguishing displacement pulses from other types of seismic shock, which we don't care about. We can't say "even though high-rise buildings are especially vulnerable to displacement pulses, displacement pulses aren't messing up these high-rise buildings, because displacement pulses travel longer distances than do other shocks." We need an answer to distinguish high-rise buildings from other buildings so that we can understand why these extra-vulnerable buildings are seeing little damage.

   8%
2. B

   Correct72% picked this

   Scientific predictions based on computer models often fail when tested in

   Why this is right

   Wow, what a weird answer. This resolves the paradox by saying our prediction that high-rise buildings are especially vulnerable was just an inaccurate prediction, from a flawed computer model. If we had reversed the order of the paradox, this answer would sound more appealing. Given that ... in cities hit by powerful earthquakes, the high-rise buildings suffer little damage, Why is it that ... our computer models say that these high-rise buildings should be especially vulnerable? Because ... predictions based on computer models are often wrong. Should we have known to rearrange the paradox into that order? Of course not. The vast majority of Paradox question end with the surprising claim that the correct answer helps to explain. However, it's good for us to remember that when we're just "resolving a paradox", there's a tension between two ideas, and there isn't any implicit rule for which one of those ideas we will "re-frame" in order to reconcile the paradox. Although the vast majority of the time we learn something that helps us understand how the 2nd idea could coexist with the 1st, there will be occasional correct answers such as this that help us understand how the 1st idea could coexist with the 2nd.

   Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   72%
3. C

   Deepens Paradox, if anything4% picked this

   While displacement pulses have only recently been discovered, they have accompanied all earthquakes that

   This doesn't offer us a way to resolve the paradox. Since displacement pulses have always existed, they were definitely present in the "recent powerful earthquakes" that hit these cities. Since the high-rises weren't damaged too much, yet our computer models say they should be hit especially bad by displacement pulses, we're still living in the same state of confusion.

   4%
4. D

   Deepens Paradox, if anything15% picked this

   The displacement pulses made by low-and medium-intensity earthquakes are much less powerful than those made

   Since these cities were hit by "powerful earthquakes", this answer is telling us that the displacement pulse hitting those high-rises would have been much more powerful than in a weaker quake. And given that the computer models say that high-rise buildings are especially vulnerable to these pulses, we're still (or even more) confused about why the high-rises didn't seem to be damaged by these recent earthquakes.

   15%
5. E

   Deepens Paradox, if anything1% picked this

   Computer models have been very successful in predicting the effects of other types

   This essentially does the opposite of (B). It makes us feel more trust in the accuracy of the model's prediction, and thus more confusion about why high-rises weren't damaged in these powerful earthquakes.

   1%