LSAT 101 – Section 2 – Question 18

LSAT 101 - Section 2 - Question 18

December 1997

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:31

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT101 S2 Q18
+LR
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
9%
163
B
29%
167
C
15%
165
D
1%
163
E
47%
169
153
169
180
 +Hardest 150.088 +SubsectionMedium

Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years, there has been a sixfold increase in government funding for the preservation of wetlands, while the total area of wetlands needing such preservation has increased only twofold (although this area was already large ten years ago). Even when inflation is taken into account, the amount of funding now is at least three times what it was ten years ago. Nevertheless, the current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Funding for wetland preservation has effectively tripled, while the extent of wetlands needing preservation has only doubled. So why is funding for wetland preservation considered inadequate?

Objective

The correct answer must be a hypothesis that explains why the recent funding increases are still insufficient. It will show that, somehow, the need for preservation remains greater than what the current funding provides for.

A
The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.

This doesn’t explain why the need for preservation outstrips the available funding. Even if (A) is true, we know that this funding has nevertheless increased at a faster rate than the land area in need of preservation. We must explain why more money is still needed.

B
Over the past ten years, the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased at a rate higher than the inflation rate.

The available funding has also increased at a rate much higher than inflation. For (B) to be an adequate explanation, it would need to suggest that salary growth has outstripped the funding increase and that those salaries are a significant draw on that funding.

C
Research over the past ten years has enabled scientists today to identify wetlands in need of preservation well before the areas are at serious risk of destruction.

This doesn’t explain why the available funding is insufficient. Even if wetlands are more proactively identified for preservation, the fact remains that funding has increased at a faster rate than the land area in need of preservation. Why is that funding still not enough?

D
More people today, scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural resources, including wetlands.

This doesn’t explain why the available funding for wetlands is insufficient. Even if (D) is true, we know that funding for wetlands has effectively tripled. The correct answer must explain why even that amount of money is not enough.

E
Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.

If the amount of funding was very small to begin with, then even a tripling of that amount is still a small amount. Meanwhile, the total wetland area in need of preservation was large to begin with and is now twice that size. So, the amount of funding has always been too little.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply