Q6

[betsya1]

Can you help me understand why question #6 is E vs D?

[bbirdwell]

(D) is simply not supported. Whether members of communities have "long argued that they should set the agenda" is never even mentioned. Only expert opinions and critics' opinions are given.

(E) is the "most strongly" supported of the five choices, though it's not perfectly provable, thus the language of the question. The language sounds a bit extreme, but "a number of wasteful efforts" is supported by lines 6-11 (several efforts were ineffective, some were destructive). "Dramatic illustrations" is supported by the second paragraph (tons of food, billions of dollars). "Little accountability" is supported by the last part of the third paragraph. If the new programs need to have grassroots support, with locals in the lead, we can infer that the ineffective efforts did NOT do this. By the same logic, "stated desires of those affected" is sufficiently equivalent to "accountability."

[geverett]

Got this question wrong. Here are my thoughts on it:

(A) We know that inefficiencies have existed, but there is no support for the inefficiencies becoming progressively worst. Unsupported. Get rid of it.
(B) We do know really know the feelings of the community. The author is advocating for a dialogue between donors, relief agencies, and local communities. However, there is no support for the communities having expressed little interest prior to the most recent years which we can also infer as meaning that they are becoming more interested in recent years. Both of these ideas are unsupported. Get rid of it.
(C) There is really no support for the fact that most needs were met despite inefficiencies. We know that the efforts sometimes created secondary disasters and that in some cases food and aid money went missing but there nothing mentioned about most needs being met in spite of these inefficiencies. Unsupported. Get rid of it.
(D) Once again this is unsupported. There is no mention of local communities holding a long standing position that they should set the "agenda for relief efforts". We know the author thinks they should, but we don't know their opinion and can't really extrapolate one from the text. Unsupported. Get rid of it.
(E) This is the best answer choice, because the other four are clearly wrong. Everything is supported here. The use of "a number of wasteful relief efforts" does seem strong, but I think it's safe to say that "a number" is logically equivalent to "many" which is ambiguous enough to work here.

[bbirdwell]

I like it! Drop me a line and lemme know how your studies are going!

[arya.bhaskar1987]

Hi.

Just wanted to understand whether in Answer Choice (E), ".. with little accountability to populations affected by disasters." means the populations affected have not taken up accountability or that they programs implemented by donors and agencies have been with little accountability towards the needs of the affected population. I think I misinterpreted it and got this question wrong.

Kindly help.

Thanks,

[LizaK873]

I believe it meant it as implemented 'not by' the recipients.
little accountability - recipients had little or no say in relief planning.