RRE questions

Legallyblack-2

Hi what is a good approach for these questions? I been studying for 6 hours and Im still not grasping it?

JesseWeNeedToCook

For me the stratedgy isn't to crazy as it boils down to single question of either why? or how?
PT24. S2. Q18

After reading the question stem it should immediately be clear that, ok this is a RRE.

Next after reading the prompt, there should be two things pulled out, the first being the set of facts (in this case: the funding increased six-fold, the land only increased two-fold.)

and the secondly the conclusion, (in this case the belief that the funding is still inadequate and should be augmented).

Now its time to ask the key question. Why?

Why is the current funding still inadequate when the given facts seem to be pointing that the funding should be adequate? Personally, when it comes to pre-phrasing on RRE I think its fine so long as you don't get tunnel visioned / waste time. However, I know a lot of people don't bother with pre-phrasing for this question type given how many possible answers there can be.

now looking through the answer choices

A) might look appealing, but doesn't really explain why the amount of funding is inadequate. It just explains that the agencies management of funds is inadequate, which is a separate topic. Also it doesn't really say anything about the current agency, and we would be left to assume that they still mismanage their funds like they did over the past ten years.

B ) Who cares? Inflation rate? where the heck did that come from. At best maybe this could explain where some of the new funding is going but again it doesn't get to the core of the issue. Why is the funding inadequate after a 6x increase?

C) This has nothing to do with funding and so what in our facts its already accounted for that the land that needs preservation increased by twofold.

D) Again ok so what? given our facts that the funding increased by ten folds this could be one of the places where the extra funding is going, but it still doesn't explain why the funding is inadequate.

E) Correct answer. Perfectly explains why the funding is inadequate after a 6x increase. If the funding is initially near zero multiplying it by ten isn't going to make it very significant difference. Meanwhile we know that the amount of land was large 10 years ago, so it doubling would make a a big increase in the amount of land needing to be protected and assumably the costs.