A philosophical paradox is a particularly baffling sort of argument.
Statements
On Must Be True, we're primarily looking out for Conditional or Math-y wording. The last sentence has the conditional word "requires", which is a necessary (right side) indicator.
Required thing = goes on Right
Solving a philosophical → Accepting one of paradox three things
We either have to accept 1. The conclusion is true 2. At least one premise is not true, or 3. The logic isn't valid
Here's a stupid example of a pseudo-philosophical paradox: Applesauce is better than nothing. Nothing is better than getting to hold your newborn baby. Therefore, applesauce is better than getting to hold your newborn baby.
We know, intuitively, that the conclusion is wrong. Applesauce doesn't beat the first time you cradle your progeny.
But ... each premise sounds like a true statement. The logic seems solid: premise 1: Applesauce > Nothing premise 2: Nothing > holding newborn conclusion: Applesauce > holding newborn
In order for us to resolve our cognitive dissonance, we need to either give in and accept the conclusion, or fight it by saying that a premise isn't a valid claim or that we're somehow messing up the logic of combining premises to derive the conclusion.
Evaluate
When we have a conditional rule, we look to see if we can chain it to other conditionals, or whether we can apply it to any facts that trigger the rule.
There aren't any other conditionals, and there isn't a fact where someone has "solved a philosophical paradox", to whom we could apply this rule.
Goal
So, we should just go to the questions flexibly, and anticipate that the answer will probably make some use of the conditional rule.