Self-study
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). ████ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ ██ █████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████ █████████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████
"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.
18.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████████ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██████
a
The governmental agency ███████████ ███ █████████████ ████████████████████ █████ ███ ████ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██████
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 ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ████████ ████ █████████ ██ █ ████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ █████
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 ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████████████
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, ██████████ ███ █████████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████████ █████████
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 ███ ███ ████████████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ███ █████ ████
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.