Explanation
Reading the question: We have a long prompt and a short
stem, so we check the stem. It says "resolve a discrepancy." That's the same as
"explain." As discussed in Osprey Prey and Caller Complaints, since we are
explaining, we should identify the two parts of the so-called "discrepancy."
The correct answer will need to address both parts, without contradicting any
of the facts given.
Creating a filter: "Perplexingly" is an important word,
because it allows us to parse the prompt into two parts. The second, shorter
part is that sharks must be protected from overfishing. Why is that perplexing?
Because of whatever the main point of the first part is: sharks live longer
than expected. We'll look for something that connects logically to both parts:
1) sharks live longer than expected, and 2) they must be protected.
Applying the filter: (A) doesn't connect to the sharks'
age. Choice (B) just restates part of the prompt. Choice (C) just restates the
other part of the prompt. Choice (D) doesn't connect to either portion of the
discrepancy. Choice (E) touches on both parts: it says that if sharks are older
than we thought, there are fewer of them than we thought. That's a good reason
to protect them from overfishing.
Logical proof: A logical proof is not always possible on
"explain" questions, but we can use the negation test to confirm (E), in this
case. Suppose that sharks reproduced more quickly
than had previously been assumed: that would lessen the need to protect sharks. Since the negation would add to
the mystery and contradict the opinion of "some parties," we have confirmation
the non-negated (E) would, indeed, resolve the mystery. The correct answer is
(E).
If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.