Top Law Schools

I can see how (E) can explain the paradox, but why not (A)? Granted, we already know that corn produced more food than the other grains from the stimulus, but couldn't the people just have considered this fact more important than the nutrition problems? The amount of food produced would have been even larger than the initial returns from corn before it became the staple crop. Is (A) wrong because the answer to a resolve the paradox question must bring in substantially new information?

cloudhidden wrote:I can see how (E) can explain the paradox, but why not (A)? Granted, we already know that corn produced more food than the other grains from the stimulus, but couldn't the people just have considered this fact more important than the nutrition problems? The amount of food produced would have been even larger than the initial returns from corn before it became the staple crop. Is (A) wrong because the answer to a resolve the paradox question must bring in substantially new information?

The reason A is wrong is because it really doesn't do anything to resolve the paradox. In short, it's actually an unnecessary comparison. So WHAT if the people who rely on corn produced more food than their ancestors; it doesn't matter.

Be careful of answer choices that make comparisons to other things when a comparison has no bearing on the argument/question itself.

Hope that helps!

Wrong forum.