PT 59, S3, Q17 A recent study of major motion pictures

[aileenann]

This is an unusual argument in combining EXCEPT language with a paradox to resolve. This should reward particularly creative thinkers who themselves can anticipate more than one way to resolve the paradox that people like to see many movies per year despite proof that the movies have largely repetitive plots.

A correct answer will be the one that does NOT explain this paradox. Let’s look at our options:

(A) This one has something out of scope _ financially successful. While scope is not as important in paradox questions as it is in, for example, assumption questions, it’s hard to imagine what financial success has to do with repetitiveness. This might provide affirmation that people do continue going to the movies despite repetitiveness, but it doesn’t tell us *why* this is so.
(B) does resolve the paradox by explaining that the repetitiveness is not a problem because movie goers don’t realize they’re seeing the same thing again and again.
(C) tells us that the repetitiveness problem is not as daunting as it might initially seem, showing that it is not so very surprising that it doesn’t affect moviegoers.
(D) turns the repetitiveness into a good thing, another way to dissipate any apparent paradox.
(E) is like (C), telling us that the repetitiveness is not as frequent as we might initially expect.

Are there any other examples of combining this EXCEPT language with a paradox question that you know of? Do you generally find them easier or more difficult with the EXCEPT language thrown in?

[BernardB560]

That’s a great breakdown reminds me of how Financial Advisor Cold Calling often defies logic too, despite low success rates, it's still widely used, which itself could be seen as a kind of paradox.