GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Sep 2018, 05:55

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten

Author Message
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1167
Location: Taiwan
Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2005, 17:26
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (02:01) wrong based on 5 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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). Even when inflation is taken into account, the amount of funding now is at least three times what it was ten years ago. Nevertheless, the current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the environmental scientistâ€™s conclusion with the evidence cited above?

(A) The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.

(B) Over the past ten years, the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased at a rate higher than the inflation rate.

(C) Research over the past ten years has enabled scientists today to identify wetlands in need of preservation well before the areas are at serious risk of destruction.

(D) More people today scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural resources including wetlands.

(E) Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.

--== Message from the GMAT Club Team ==--

THERE IS LIKELY A BETTER DISCUSSION OF THIS EXACT QUESTION.
This discussion does not meet community quality standards. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4906
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2005, 18:09
Environmental scientist:
1) Over past 10 yrs, there has been 6 fold increase in governement funding for preservatin of wetlands
2)In the same time, total area of wetlands needing preservation has increased only 2 fold
3)Area was already large 10 yrs ago
4)Even when inflation taken into account, amt of funding now is at least 5)3 times what it was ten yrs ago
C)current amt of funding for preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented <--- conclusion

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the environmental scientistâ€™s conclusion with the evidence cited above?

(A) The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.
- out of scope

(B) Over the past ten years, the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased at a rate higher than the inflation rate.
- No mention of scientists in the passage

(C) Research over the past ten years has enabled scientists today to identify wetlands in need of preservation well before the areas are at serious risk of destruction.
- out of scope

(D) More people today scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural resources including wetlands.
- out of scope

(E) Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.
- I'll go with this choice. We're told in the passage 10 yrs ago, the area needing preservation was large. And today, it's increased 2 fold. If there was no funding for preservation of wetlands, then the area needing preservation from 10 yrs ago would be carried over to today, and hence the amt of funding required would not be sufficient.

Choice (E) for me.
VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1397

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2005, 09:45
"E"....just becose funding has increased doesn't mean it is enuf e.g. what if it was negligible in the first place, E fits the bill.
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1762
Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2005, 17:07
I would go for (C).

The research has enabled the early identifiaction of wet lands that will undergo distruction. If this happens the the government funding , which is six times, wont be sufficient because the more wetlands will be discovered.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4906
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2005, 18:39
anandnk wrote:
I would go for (C).

The research has enabled the early identifiaction of wet lands that will undergo distruction. If this happens the the government funding , which is six times, wont be sufficient because the more wetlands will be discovered.

I picked E as my answer, but your take on C is interesting. What do you think of my reasoning for E ?
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1762
Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 10:03
ywilfred wrote:
anandnk wrote:
I would go for (C).

The research has enabled the early identifiaction of wet lands that will undergo distruction. If this happens the the government funding , which is six times, wont be sufficient because the more wetlands will be discovered.

I picked E as my answer, but your take on C is interesting. What do you think of my reasoning for E ?

Your theory may be correct. I am not sure how/how not the six fold increase in the government spending wont take care of the huge wetland areas.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4906
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 10:30
anandnk wrote:
ywilfred wrote:
anandnk wrote:
I would go for (C).

The research has enabled the early identifiaction of wet lands that will undergo distruction. If this happens the the government funding , which is six times, wont be sufficient because the more wetlands will be discovered.

I picked E as my answer, but your take on C is interesting. What do you think of my reasoning for E ?

Your theory may be correct. I am not sure how/how not the six fold increase in the government spending wont take care of the huge wetland areas.

I see your point regarding my theory on choice (E). But doesn't the reasoning apply to choice C as well ? We're not sure how/how not the 6 fold increase in government spending can't take care of the hugh wetland areas identified early through science.
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 579

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 10:33
E.. we dunno if its funding is sufficient or not.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4906
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 10:35
vprabhala wrote:
E.. we dunno if its funding is sufficient or not.

Same for C, we don't know if funding is sufficient or not !
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 579

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 10:38
ywilfred wrote:
vprabhala wrote:
E.. we dunno if its funding is sufficient or not.

Same for C, we don't know if funding is sufficient or not !

I think C says that with the technology says that more funding is required..it says that it identifies the wetlands at serious risk which in turn mean that they know that if it is sufficient or not !
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4906
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 10:41
vprabhala wrote:
ywilfred wrote:
vprabhala wrote:
E.. we dunno if its funding is sufficient or not.

Same for C, we don't know if funding is sufficient or not !

I think C says that with the technology says that more funding is required..it says that it identifies the wetlands at serious risk which in turn mean that they know that if it is sufficient or not !

I copied choice C here:
"Research over the past ten years has enabled scientists today to identify wetlands in need of preservation well before the areas are at serious risk of destruction"

There is still nothing to suggests that the 6 fold increase in funding cannot support the preservation of wetlands presently in need of help, and those that are identified early to be in need of preservation.
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1448
Location: Germany

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 10:56
i think C) is the only answer that shows the discrepancy in the argument
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 579

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 10:57
why is C better than E ywilfred?
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 440

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 10:59
anandnk wrote:
I would go for (C).

The research has enabled the early identifiaction of wet lands that will undergo distruction. If this happens the the government funding , which is six times, wont be sufficient because the more wetlands will be discovered.

C just means more wet lands need to be preserve, but it's possible that current funding is still enough.

E means there was no such funding before, then 6 times more funding might still equal to 0, so the currect amount needs to be increased.

My pick is E
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4906
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 11:02
vprabhala wrote:
why is C better than E ywilfred?

I had always been for E.

I just don't see how the passage justifies that a 6 fold increase in funding is not enough even with prediction of wetlands that will need preservations (choice C).
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 579

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 12:12
Interesting Post to have it on the "world water day"
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1448
Location: Germany

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 12:40
E) is also good, but i think C) is better because the argument talks about the future as the answer in C) does. i would assume that the preservation of the wetlands is already contained in the sixfold increase.
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 579

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 13:18
the war between C and E continues...what is the OA and OE?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4906
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2005, 23:13
chunjuwu, do you have the OA/OE for this question ?
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1167
Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2005, 01:55
Hi sorry for late OA is E.

(C) is 50/50 % sufficient or not sufficient.

(E) is 100% not sufficient.

right?

Thanks
&nbs [#permalink] 23 Mar 2005, 01:55

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

## Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.