Q18 - Environmental scientist: It is true

[willaminic]

Hi,

For this question, i chose A, my concern about E is that it is talking about ten years ago, i mean it is irrelvant first and A seems solve the paradoxial well....

Thank you in advance, Atlas seems great!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Remember on these resolve/reconcile questions that we need an answer choice that reconciles both statements.

Here are the two statements that we are asked to reconcile.

1. There has been a sixfold increase in government funding for the preservation of wetlands.
2. The current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.

(A) actually undermines one of the claims we are trying to reconcile. If the money has been consistently mismanaged, then maybe the current amount of funding is adequate and it's just the administrators that need to be replaced. Also, why would we want to give a mismanaged department more money?
(B) does not reconcile the claim that the current level of funding is inadequate. Salaries increasing at a rate higher than the inflation rate does not tell us that the level of funding is inadequate.
(C) is irrelevant. Identifying the areas not yet in need of preservation would not increase the funding necessary, because the preservation is not yet needed. Maybe once these areas begin the preservation process that would explain why more funding would be needed.
(D) undermines the claim that the current level of funding is inadequate. If everyone's pitching in, why would we need more money for the government to undertake the preservation work.
(E) reconciles both statements. It explains why there has been such a large increase in funding and yet the current level of funding is still adequate and should be augmented. If they started off with nearly nothing, then a sixfold increase still amounts to very little, which is why the current level of funding is inadequate.

[goriano]

Remember on these resolve/reconcile questions that we need an answer choice that reconciles both statements.

Here are the two statements that we are asked to reconcile.

1. There has been a sixfold increase in government funding for the preservation of wetlands.
2. The current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.

(A) actually undermines one of the claims we are trying to reconcile. If the money has been consistently mismanaged, then maybe the current amount of funding is adequate and it's just the administrators that need to be replaced. Also, why would we want to give a mismanaged department more money?
(B) does not reconcile the claim that the current level of funding is inadequate. Salaries increasing at a rate higher than the inflation rate does not tell us that the level of funding is inadequate.
(C) is irrelevant. Identifying the areas not yet in need of preservation would not increase the funding necessary, because the preservation is not yet needed. Maybe once these areas begin the preservation process that would explain why more funding would be needed.
(D) undermines the claim that the current level of funding is inadequate. If everyone's pitching in, why would we need more money for the government to undertake the preservation work.
(E) reconciles both statements. It explains why there has been such a large increase in funding and yet the current level of funding is still adequate and should be augmented. If they started off with nearly nothing, then a sixfold increase still amounts to very little, which is why the current level of funding is inadequate.

I understand the logic behind (E) in retrospect, but I'm having a hard time understanding why (B) is incorrect and feel that if I were to redo this question, I would still gravitate towards (B) even after knowing the credited response.

If salaries of those EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT (heavily suggesting that these salaries are included within the scope of "government funding") increased by a rate greater than the inflation rate, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that more funding would be needed for that salary increase? Also, (B) seemed to get at the idea that the total AREA of wetlands isn't the only factor that should be taken into account when looking at the funding for the PRESERVATION of wetlands. Help!

[lhermary]

Yes, please go into more detail as why B is wrong.

If the scientists rate of pay has increased 8 fold, then the level of funding in inadequate..

Thanks

[austindyoung]

I dismissed (B) because the stimulus states that, "inflation is taken into account."

So even if, as (B) states, "the salaries of scientists employed by the government...have increased at a rate higher than the inflation rate." the stimulus tells us this, if true, would have already been taken into account. Therefore it would not be a reason to augment the funding.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I dismissed (B) because the stimulus states that, "inflation is taken into account."

That's an interesting take austindyoung! I think I would eliminate answer choice (B) for a different reason though.

We're looking for something that can explain why funding has increased at least three-fold (after taking inflation into account) and yet the funding is inadequate and should be augmented. If the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased faster than the inflation rate, I'm left wondering, "to what extent?" Have they grown eight-fold as lhermary asked? Or was it just slightly more than inflation?

Without knowing the answer to this question, we would not be able to explain why government funding increased so much and yet such funding is inadequate.

[austindyoung]

If the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased faster than the inflation rate, I'm left wondering, "to what extent?"
Without knowing the answer to this question, we would not be able to explain why government funding increased so much and yet such funding is inadequate.

Ya, I totally agree, mattsherman. I guess even if inflation is taken into account, in the stimulus the inflation pertains to the amount of funding . However, answer choice (B), adds another variable: the salaries of scientists.

So, I guess it's not enough to simply dismiss the answer because inflation has been accounted for, to some extent, in the stim. Since, (B) doesn't tell us how much, it doesn't really help to draw the conclusion, as you state.

By the way... If you can, you should browse on over to PrepTest 17, Section 2 #24... The Ditrama one- no one has answered it yet.

[crazyapple11]

After reading all the posts, I still have some questions about (B). My understanding is that (B) says the research helps the scientists identify more wetlands than before over the past ten years. That's why even the government increases its funding, it's still inadequate because more wetlands were identified. The preservation of wetlands means when you identify it is a wetland, you will preserve it, regardless whether it is at serious risk of destruction. Correct me if I am wrong. Thank you.

[hayleychen12]

I dismissed (B) because the stimulus states that, "inflation is taken into account."

That's an interesting take austindyoung! I think I would eliminate answer choice (B) for a different reason though.

We're looking for something that can explain why funding has increased at least three-fold (after taking inflation into account) and yet the funding is inadequate and should be augmented. If the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased faster than the inflation rate, I'm left wondering, "to what extent?" Have they grown eight-fold as lhermary asked? Or was it just slightly more than inflation?

Without knowing the answer to this question, we would not be able to explain why government funding increased so much and yet such funding is inadequate.

I have a rather general question.
This question is a PARADOX type. E seems like a sufficient condition that can make the stimulus logically plausible. However, B seems like to me a necessary condition that would be selected if they rewrote this into a necessary condition question（Is this correct?).
So can I make the conclusion that when encounter a Paradox question, always look for a sufficient condition?

Thank you！

[ohthatpatrick]

I would recommend you stop using ideas like Necessary or Sufficient at all for Paradox questions.

There are no assumptions here, because we're not reading arguments.

I think you might just be using "necessary" as a code word for "weak support" and "sufficient" as a code word for "strong support".

In that world of code language, YES, you always want the strongest support you can get (what you were calling sufficient)

But again, don't think about it as Nec vs. Suff, as that distinction has no meaning in fact-based questions.

The question stem simply asks "Which answer does the MOST to resolve the tension/confusion?"

Just organize what you've read into a
"Given that ______ is true, how can it be that _____ ?" format
and pick the answer that MOST HELPS to clarify

Given that funding is at least three times what it was 10 years ago, even though the problem hasn't gotten three times bigger
How can it be that The current amount of funding is inadequate?

(B) because salaries have outpaced inflation?
or
(E) because there was NO funding ten years ago (so we need to make up for lost time)?

[WesleyC316]

I can see why E is right. But I'm just having a hard time accepting that A is not correct. I mean, if the agency has been consistently mismanaging the funds for ten years, of course there would not be enough funds even though they have increased multiple times. Or at least, it does reconcile the conclusion with the evidence, doesn't it?