PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 18
Environmental scientist: It is true that over the(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(15 more words not shown)
- AThe governmental agency(17 more words not shown)
- BOver the past(27 more words not shown)
- CResearch over the(24 more words not shown)
- DMore people today,(13 more words not shown)
- EUnlike today, funding(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Six times what?
A sixfold funding increase sounds enormous, but an increase from ten dollars to sixty dollars is still only sixty dollars. Either amount could be nowhere near enough to preserve a large area of wetlands. We need the starting amount before a multiplier tells us much about adequacy.
There are other questions too. The area needing protection has doubled, but perhaps protecting each acre has become harder. More pollution could require more cleanup; threatened animals could require more staff or different protection. Inflation is one possible reason costs rise, although the passage already addresses it: even after adjusting for inflation, funding is at least three times its old level. We'd need something beyond ordinary inflation to explain added costs.
At first, the comparison might sound like the setup for a complaint about wasteful spending. But the scientist goes the other way: funding is still inadequate and should increase. Our task is to reconcile that conclusion with the large increase already described.
What we’re looking for
Why might they still need more when funding has grown faster than the area needing protection? Either the work could have become more demanding in some additional way, or the old budget could have been so inadequate that even a large percentage increase leaves it short. Those are the possibilities I'd test against the answers.
Working the answers
- A
Inefficiency could keep money from accomplishing much, so this isn't a meaningless fact. But consistent mismanagement doesn't tell us how the funding compares with the actual preservation need, and it doesn't directly explain why adding still more money is the solution. It could point instead toward changing how existing funds are used. E gives a more direct explanation of the underlying shortfall.
- B
This is tempting because it names a cost that rose faster than inflation—one of the kinds of changes we were considering. But how much did salaries rise, and how much of the budget do they use? A modest real increase in one cost could coexist with funding that has at least tripled after inflation.
B doesn't tell us that salary growth is large enough to use up the additional funding or leave preservation underfunded. We shouldn't assume that paying scientists more explains the entire shortfall. E addresses a more basic missing fact: how inadequate the starting budget was.
- C
Earlier identification might let scientists protect wetlands before serious damage occurs. That could make the job easier rather than show why current funding remains insufficient. We aren't told that earlier detection adds costs large enough to explain the shortfall. Knowing when a problem can be identified doesn't supply the missing budget comparison.
- D
More people working on conservation could mean more help is available. We aren't told that these are additional government-paid workers or that their involvement increases the government's required spending. Without that connection, the larger workforce doesn't explain why the present government budget is inadequate.
- ECorrect
The starting budget was almost nonexistent even though the area needing preservation was already large. Multiplying that very small starting amount doesn't establish that the result is enough.
Return to ten dollars becoming sixty. The new budget is six times the old one, but if the original task already cost far more than ten dollars, sixty might still leave a large shortfall—especially with more land now needing help. Those numbers are only an illustration. The point is that a big relative increase can coexist with inadequate total funding. E supplies the missing information that makes the scientist's conclusion understandable.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.