Q5

[jennifer]

Why is E in correct and A correct? I was a bit thrown off because I thought that A was incorrect because I did not recall that the author was overly concerned with the benefit to the aid providers, as answer choice A seems to indicate?

[bbirdwell]

You're right that at first glance that might seem a bit out of scope. Focus on eliminating bad answers first. (A) is the only one that stands up to any scrutiny.

(B) nope. "inevitably result in detrimental reduction..."
(C) nope. "not address the mismanagement..."
(D) nope. "likely be undermined..."
(E) nope. Nothing is said about donors playing a minor role. Nor is it ever said that they now play a major role.

(A) is the best match. Essentially the author thinks long-term is a really good idea. With that conception in mind, you can probably answer many questions correctly without making them overly complex. Just based on what the author did actually say in the passage, is it reasonable to infer that he/she thinks that people with a "shared interest in effective efforts" would be benefited by long-term perspective? Yes! That is totally reasonable!

[jk8451]

(C) nope. "not address the mismanagement..."

Sorry, but could you explain C) a bit more in detail? I thought "not address the mismanagement..." fits pretty well in the author's view, as otherwise he wouldn't like a long-term plan that much...

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

I think you've mixed up the "not."

Does the author think that long-term views would NOT address the mismanagement of short-term efforts?

No. The whole discussion of long-term perspective is because it's potentially BETTER than short-term...

[mic_a_chav87]

I need more clarification on this one too. You basically said that A is right DESPITE the fact that nowhere does it mention long-term aid will help donors.

At least E has some circumstantial evidence that donors will take a lesser role, such as:

(39-43)
"...relief agencies can rely on members of affected communities to take the lead. The practical effect of this approach is that
aid takes the form of a response to the stated desires of those affected..."

[shirando21]

I don't understand where in the passage indicate the aid providers have a shared interest.

Can anyone explain?

or simply because other choices are worse?

[jimmy902o]

I second shirando21's post. if we can rule out E because there was no discussion about donors playing a minor role because it wasnt discussed...

why shouldt we rule out A for that same reason? Where does it say that aid providers have a shared interest in efforts that are effective AND well managed?

[yhcho]

If anything, I think (A) makes sense when we rely on pure common sense and think that aid providers (relief agencies) do what they do because they want to help these people deal with the situation.

But this seems like a bit of a stretch, no?

(E) is stronger in terms of textual support since in line 39~ the author says "relief agencies can rely on members of affected communities to take the lead"

but then this can be a half-right/half-wrong answer because having someone take the lead does not necessarily relegate one to a minor role...

Can somebody please clarify?

[shirando21]

I think E is out because of minor.

In line L46, donors are described as an important constituency, so it is obviously wrong to say that donors play a minor role.

[bbirdwell]

(E) goes way too far. Nowhere does the author suggest that shifting toward a long-term view would be the beginning of a trend. Much less, a trend where donors are minor and recipients major. A total reversal is never proposed. Just an alteration.

The passage simply says: traditionally, recipients don't play a role. Experts and critics think it would be a good idea to incorporate them into the process, and take a long-term view.

(A) says "the author would think this was a good thing." Yep. Nice and conservative, definitely supportable from the text, and doesn't go too far.

[raziel]

Notice that before looking at the answer choices, the paragraph that most expresses the author's views about the shift is the last paragraph. The first sentence tells us that the author believes that it is a good plan, but that it will require a certain reaction from donors. So we go with this in mind to answer the question, "the author believes that it is a good plan whose success depends on donors".

So we are left answer choice (A) and (E), since (B),(C) and (D) contradict the passage. I ruled out (E) because the author is somewhat cautious about the plans and it says it is the beginning of a trend, implying that it is a sure thing. But also the author never makes the comparisons stated in (E).

But notice that we don't really have to analyze the answers too much if we have a clear view of what the answer should sound like beforehand.

(A) The author believes that it is a good plan whose success depends on donors VS "A development that would benefit..."

(E) The author believes that it is a good plan whose success depends on donors VS "Beginning of trend...Major role VS Minor role"...

[547494985]

hi, everyone, I have a question concerning answer D.
In line 45-47, the author said, though this proposal appears sound, its success depends on how an important contingency, namely donors, will respond. I thought D is the rephrase of this sentence. can anyone help please?

[christine.defenbaugh]

hi, everyone, I have a question concerning answer D.
In line 45-47, the author said, though this proposal appears sound, its success depends on how an important contingency, namely donors, will respond. I thought D is the rephrase of this sentence. can anyone help please?

Great question, 547494985!

You are spot on in your line reference, and the fact that it means that the author believes that any shift toward the long-term would depend on how donors respond. So, if (D) said that it was a movement that could possibly be undermined by the unwillingness of donors, I would absolutely agree with you.

But that's not quite what (D) says - instead, this answer indicates that the movement will likely be undermined by the unwillingness of donors. That's not just saying it's possible, or that the success depends on the donors! This is saying that the donors will LIKELY respond badly!

The author never suggests that - only that there's a possibility the donors could undermine the whole thing. Not that it's likely.

Does that help clear this up a bit?

[jrkovals]

I've heard lines 6-10 provide support for the second half of answer choice A. I believe it does. Also the fact the the author dedicates the final paragraph to speaking of the donors' roles in disaster relief, supports they have a large role in relief, not a minor.

[Lisaandpeterlin]

I wanted to share my thoughts on why A is correct - Line 39, "so in a disaster's immediate aftermath, relief agencies can rely on members of affected communities to take the lead."

Therefore, in answer choice A when it says, "it benefits the affected communities as well as the aid providers" - that is true because the aid members are those affected taking lead. Hope this clears things up for future questions.

[LizaK873]

A - directly supported by first two sentences;
- [...have forced [b]relief agencies[/b], communities, ... to reevaluate the ways... ] --> both aid providers & recipients
- [They believe that traditional ways... have proved ineffective --> the 3 listed above believe it's ineffective --> so they are all concerned with A

B - opposite, the solution would improve the problems short term, as well as address long term

C - same as B

D - confusion may arise from 3rd paragraph, but it's actually saying "in a disaster's immediate aftermath", doners first wait for leaders to tell them the needs/take charge, rather than donors aid first. The word 'immediate' is used in 2 different ways here. The prior 'immediate' refers to short term aid, while the latter immediate refers to first action taken.

E - all that can be inferred is that recipients play a bigger role, and providers play a smaller role. but does not make either of them major (most) or minor in any way, because that means recipients > providers.
It is completely possible that traditionally, recipients < providers, BUT, afterwards, recipients < providers still, OR recipients = providers.
Just because aid providers now wait for recipients to tell them needs, does not mean they do 51%+ of the work needed.