The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur

Pre-Thinking, what is the author basically arguing:
The author argues that the US ignored one natural resource for too long, namely topsoil.
Because the federal expenditures are "ridiculously low" when we compare them to some individual state expenditures.

What do we expect from the answer choices?
We expect something that describes the way the author argues. Just restating some mentioned facts is not enough.
We want something that says the author argues that federal expenditures are too low in that he somehow compares those expenditures to states' expenditures.


(A) makes a detailed statistical projection of future topsoil loss
Expl: he does not say what the topsoil in the future will look like. No projection of anything is made at all.
He just states statistical figures about topsoils during the past years, that is not a projection into the future.
Incorrect!

(B) makes a generalization about total reduction in topsoil depth in all states
Expl: He says that "the topsoil in many states" has reduced over several years, that fact is true. But many states are not all.
And more importantly, thats not the main line of reasoning the author uses to argue. Remember, our pre thinking was that the author compares something (expenditures) in order to establish his point (that federal expenses are too low).
He does not argue that the federal expenses are too low because of general reduction in topsoil. That is not the main line of reasoning!
Incorrect!

(C) assumes that the United States government does not place a high value on its natural resources
Expl: Does the author establish his argument in that he assumes that the government does not care much about topsoil? This is not what the author does. He is not just assuming that the government does not care much about topsoil, in order to draw his conclusion (that the expenses of the government are way too less). The author actually uses some more info, namely, the information of expenses, to establish his point. He is not basing his argument on the assumption that his conclusion is just true. Thats not what he does.
Incorrect!

(D) refrains from using slanted language concerning the level of federal expenditures
Expl: The author uses neutral (not slanted) language, thats true. But is this the line of reasoning the author uses to establish his point? Does he argue against the minimal federal expenses in that he uses neutral language?
I think not. Neutral, or not slanted language, is not the main point to make his argument more convincing.
Incorrect!

(E) compares state expenditures with federal expenditures
Expl: Uh, finally. An answer choice that sounds more promising. Thats exactly how the author builds his main line of reasoning. He compares expenditures (federal vs states) in order to say that the federal effort to care about topsoil is way too less. This goes in line with our pre-thinking.
Correct!

Mark your answer! E) it is!
Hope this helps.