Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

It is currently 18 Jul 2019, 15:32

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 540
Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2007, 13:51
1
6
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

35% (02:12) correct 65% (02:15) wrong based on 239 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 scientist'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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 437
Re: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2007, 15:25
C, D and E are irrevelant to the argument. B scientist's salary has nothing to do with government funding.

A is the only one relates to the argument here.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2305
Re: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2007, 16:09
2
eyunni wrote:
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 scientist’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.

Please explain your answers.


Straight E.

This is a numbers CR so itd help to write this down if u have trouble imagining it.

Lets say funding for Wetlands was 1$ 10 years ago. 10 years ago there were 10wetlands needing funding. funding is now 6$ and wetlands needing funding has increased to 20. from this it can easily be seen that funding is still drastically insufficient.

Also the 1$ (a little exaggerated) explains how funding was almost non-existant.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 540
Re: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2007, 18:52
Yup, OA is E. Good explanation GMATBlackBelt.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 05 Oct 2016
Posts: 107
Location: China
Concentration: Healthcare, Entrepreneurship
WE: Sales (Health Care)
Re: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Dec 2016, 21:41
E is right then but don't show why A is not right?
A could also be an explaination to the situation there.
_________________
LSAT CR is driving me mad
Senior PS Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 751
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Dec 2018, 12:27
Bump. Added OA and relevant tags.
_________________
Regards,
Gladi



“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2353
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2019, 03:43
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.

Type-paradox

(A) The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.- incorrect; this deepens the paradox-
If the money has been consistently mismanaged, then the current amount of funding might be adequate
(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. - irrelevant; Salaries increasing at a rate higher than the inflation rate does not tell us that the level of funding is inadequate as there are lots of other things that add up to costs needed to preserve the wetlands.
Also, even if we assume that salaries of scientist are a major expense(from the fund), it still does not explain a 6x increase in funding.
(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. - irrelevant; just the identification of more areas will not increase the need for funding
(D) More people today scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural resources including wetlands. - incorrect; at best this is not relevant and at worst this deepens the paradox as have all working to preserve
(E) Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.- Correct; If the initial funding amount ten years was very little, then six times of that amount will still be little today

Answer A
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 67
Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2019, 14:37
1
@martytatgettestprepmurty @varitaskarishma egmat GMATNinja

can u please tell me why option choice B is not better off e
_________________
Spread some happiness..Press Kudos! :)
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Dec 2018
Posts: 7
CAT Tests
Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2019, 10:41
Skywalker18 wrote:
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.

Type-paradox

(A) The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.- incorrect; this deepens the paradox-
If the money has been consistently mismanaged, then the current amount of funding might be adequate

(E) Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.- Correct; If the initial funding amount ten years was very little, then six times of that amount will still be little today

Answer A


Good explanation overall, I would have liked a bit more detail on why answer choice A deepens the paradox :p

Also; You mistakenly said "Answer A" although you clearly meant "Answer E"


And to add to WHY answer choice A is wrong:

To paraphrase the passage: A certain project has had consistent increases in funding over the past 10 years. Although the project is now receiving 3x the funding it was 10 years ago, and the project has only doubled in size since then, we should increase funding even further.

We are asked to reconcile, i.e resolve the paradox, or for this case: Why should we follow the suggestion given all the facts presented?

Answer choice A tells us: "Well because the project is being mismanaged!"

This isn't a logical argument ANYONE would reply with. How do we know that further funding won't actually make the mismanagement of funds EVEN WORSE?

As skywalker said, this deepens the paradox, it's not actually an explanation.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Jul 2017
Posts: 34
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Accounting
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2019, 18:59
Can anyone Please explain why "B" is wrong?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Dec 2018
Posts: 7
CAT Tests
Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2019, 19:07
Rakeshtewatia wrote:
Can anyone Please explain why "B" is wrong?


You're looking to explain why it is that the seemingly contradictory statements aren't actually contradictory. (B) does nothing to address this; if you think it does can you explain how?

First we should establish whether you understand the passage & question (I find this to be very tough even as a native)

And second, we should establish whether you have correctly identified premises and conclusion

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 181
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
CAT Tests
Re: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2019, 11:49
ahabib wrote:
Rakeshtewatia wrote:
Can anyone Please explain why "B" is wrong?


You're looking to explain why it is that the seemingly contradictory statements aren't actually contradictory. (B) does nothing to address this; if you think it does can you explain how?

First we should establish whether you understand the passage & question (I find this to be very tough even as a native)

And second, we should establish whether you have correctly identified premises and conclusion

Posted from my mobile device

I also think answer can be B. The statement says that the funding has multiplied 6 times and adjusting inflation it is 3 times, an amount seems legit with the growth but still more is required. Why?

Maybe the funding is going somewhere else and option B says that the scientists are getting more money as it is costlier than inflation. Bingo! It says the costs are more going towards salaries and yes it will undermine the three times funding.

Based on the above reasoning, I would prefer option B over A or E.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2669
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Mar 2019, 11:38
1
KaranB1 wrote:
@martytatgettestprepmurty @varitaskarishma egmat GMATNinja

can u please tell me why option choice B is not better off e

Before jumping into the answer choices, let's take another look at the key pieces of the passage and the question stem.

The environmental scientists concludes that:
Quote:
the current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.

S/he reaches this conclusion despite the following evidence:

  • "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."
  • "Even when inflation is taken into account, the amount of funding now is at least three times what it was ten years ago."

So, despite the fact that funding has at least tripled in the last ten years while the area of wetlands needing protection has only doubled, the scientist concludes that the government funding "is inadequate and should be augmented."

Our task is to the answer choice that, "if true, most helps to reconcile the environmental scientist's conclusion with the evidence cited above."

Let's take a look at (E) first:
Quote:
(E) Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.

This reconciles the scientist's conclusion with the evidence nicely, because the evidence sets up a comparison between the growth of funding (at least tripled) and the growth of protected land (only twofold) in the past ten years. Tripling an "almost nonexistent" amount of funding could easily mean that the funding is still inadequate, even if the protected land area has increased at a lower rate than has the amount of funding. (E) is looking good.

Quote:
(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.

This statement provides one potential reason to validate increased government funding, but does it truly reconcile the evidence and the conclusion? The statement simply does not provide enough information to answer that question. For example, funding for the wetlands has already increased at a rate higher than the inflation rate -- does this gap account for the increase in scientists' salaries, or is the increase in funding still inadequate? We do not have enough information to know one way or the other.

The question stem asks us which answer choice "most helps to reconcile the environmental scientist's conclusion with the evidence." (B) may be tempting, but as it does not clearly reconcile the conclusion with the evidence, we can eliminate it.

(E) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years   [#permalink] 11 Mar 2019, 11:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne