Passage Summary: Computers predict that a specific type of earthquake wave should wreck skyscrapers, but real-world skyscrapers are surviving big quakes just fine.

Reasoning: Computer models suggest that a common seismic shock called a displacement pulse is dangerous to high-rises, but actual inspections of high-rises after major earthquakes show very little damage.

Analysis: The paradox lies in the conflict between theoretical vulnerability and empirical safety. To resolve this, we need a piece of information that explains why the 'alarmingly' dangerous pulses didn't result in the expected destruction. Perhaps the computer models are oversimplified, or maybe the specific high-rises studied had structural features the models didn't account for. Look for an answer choice that provides a reason why the theory (the model) fails to manifest in the reality (the standing buildings).