Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national

Question

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources.

Several approaches to protecting the national parks from  external degradation  have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy. 
 
Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. 
 
Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem.

Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation. 
 
The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.   1 
 1. What is the main purpose of the author in writing the passage?

A. argue that rampant timber harvesting is degrading national parks 
B. describe a plan of action to resolve an issue 
C. discuss different approaches to dealing with a problem 
D. suggest that local participation is necessary to solve the problem described 
E. to assert that national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries

2 
 2. The passage provides support for which of the following assertions?

A. The National Park Organic Act gave the Secretary of the Interior the right to overrule state government policy in lands adjacent to national parks. 
B. The federal government has been selling national park land to state governments in order to raise money for wildlife conservation. 
C. The actions of state governments have often failed to promote the interests of national park wildlife. 
D. Local politicians want the federal government to turn control of national parks over to state governments. 
E. Timber harvesting and energy exploration have not had any impact on national parks

3 
 3. In the context of the passage, the phrase external degradation (lines 8-9) refers to which of the following:

A. threats to national parks arising from the House of Representative's willingness to address environmental issues. 
B. threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies. 
C. threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning. 
D. threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act. 
E. threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support

4 
 4. According to the passage, which of the following developments is most likely if environmental cooperation between the federal government and state governments does not improve?

A. A further decline in the land area of national parks 
B. A further increase in federal ownership of land adjacent to national parks 
C. A further growth in the powers of the National Park Service 
D. A further loss of species in national parks 
E. A further increase in timber harvesting activities

u1983 · Accepted Answer

Question 1
1. What is the main purpose of the author in writing the passage? ........ C. discuss different approaches to dealing with a problem

Question 2
2. The passage provides support for which of the following assertions?  ........C. The actions of state governments have often failed to promote the interests of national park wildlife.  
  Supported by : Para 03 :  "Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. "

Question 4
4. According to the passage, which of the following developments is most likely if environmental cooperation between the federal government and state governments does not improve? ....................................... D. A further loss of species in national parks  
  Supported by: Para 04 :  "Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem."

Question 3
3. In the context of the passage, the phrase external degradation (lines 8-9) refers to which of the following:  ..........B. threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.  
  Supported by : ....again Para 3 & 4.  threatened by local activities......... on which the local livelihood depends... local politicians support people & activity...... thus state govt's eco-policy is not the facilitation of the preservation of the wilderness of the national parks.

Gmatsaiyan · Answer

Topic and Scope  - The author discusses approaches to dealing with the problem of the negative effects of surrounding land on national parks.
 Mapping the Passage: 
¶1 describes a problem facing national parks: negative effects from the land surrounding them.
¶2 describes one approach to dealing with the problem: federal legislation, which failed.
¶3 and 4 describe a second approach: giving power to states to cooperate with adjacent national parks, and describe the problems with it.
¶5 argues that state participation must be tied to federal regulations.
¶6 argues that any solution requires a national response with elements of local participation.

gmat1393 · Answer

OE for Q3.

Go back to the lines before and after the phrase to judge its meaning in context.The phrase refers back to the damage mentioned in ¶1, and is expanded on in the lines below. The author believes that the damage outside park boundaries is supported by state governments, as is argued in ¶s3 and 4. (B) summarizes the nature of the ―external degradation.‖
(A): Out of Scope. Not only does (A) not touch on the meaning of the phrase, but it makes no sense: if the House is willing to address environmental issues, why would parks be threatened?
(B): The Correct Answer
(C): Out of Scope. The interest of local politicians in park management is mentioned in ¶3. However, there‘s no sense from this that the politicians are threatening the parks; rather, they would be more interested in preserving them since the local economies depend on them.
(D): Out of Scope. While the author thinks that the Act leaves some gaps that need to be filled, there‘s no suggestion that it‘s directly threatening the parks.
(E): Local support comes in the last paragraph and is clearly not what the author implies by ̳external degradation‘

OE for Q4.

4) The ―according to the passage...‖ start to the question tips you off to look for a detail within the passage. Where is the scenario in the question mentioned? Go
to the last paragraph, which discusses a combination of national and local responses. It argues that this cooperation is necessary in order to ―protect park
wildlife.‖ If this cooperation doesn't occur then, wildlife would presumably be harmed. (D) rewards the careful reading.
(A): Out of Scope. The author never mentions any actual shrinking of national parks, only the danger to the existing land.
(B): Out of Scope. The author argues that the federal government already owns most of the land around national parks, and doesn't suggest anywhere that it will own more without cooperation.
(C): Out of Scope. The author never makes this argument in the passage either.
(D): The Correct Answer
(E): Too specific. There is no direct connection between environmental cooperation and timber harvesting activities

Gmatsaiyan · Answer

Official Answers and Explanations

Q1) If you have mapped the passage correctly you will notice that most of the passage discusses the different approaches that can be taken to solve the problem of degradation of national parks. C matches best with this.
(A): Though this is mentioned in the passage it is too specific a choice for a main purpose question. The passage does much more than just this.
(B): there is no one particular ‗plan of action‘ that is mentioned in the passage but several different ones
(C): the Correct Answer
(D): again mentioned in the passage but too specific to be the answer
(E): Since the passage starts with these lines, it might lead some students to think that this is the main idea of the passage. However on reading further through the passage it becomes clear that the scope of the passage is broader as it also discusses approaches to solving this problem.

Q2) An Inference question, this one requires students to find that one option which can logically follow from the information in the passage without making any extreme assumptions. Only (C) has support in the passage. The claim is originally made in lines 17-20, and ¶s 4 and 5 offer support.
(A): Out of Scope. The Act only gives the right to manage within the park, the part about ‗not to overrule state government policy‘ is not mentioned in the passage.
(B): Out of Scope. This claim is never made in the passage.
(C): The Correct Answer
(D): Extreme answer. ¶3 suggests that local politicians want a greater say in national parks, but this doesn‘t mean that they want total control.
(E): The passage states the opposite in Para 4.

Q3) Go back to the lines before and after the phrase to judge its meaning in context.
The phrase refers back to the damage mentioned in ¶1, and is expanded on in the lines below. The author believes that the damage outside park boundaries is supported by state governments, as is argued in ¶s3 and 4. (B) summarizes the nature of the ―external degradation.‖
(A): Out of Scope. Not only does (A) not touch on the meaning of the phrase, but it makes no sense: if the House is willing to address environmental issues, why would parks be threatened?
(B): The Correct Answer
(C): Out of Scope. The interest of local politicians in park management is mentioned in ¶3. However, there‘s no sense from this that the politicians are threatening the parks; rather, they would be more interested in preserving them since the local economies depend on them.
(D): Out of Scope. While the author thinks that the Act leaves some gaps that need to be filled, there‘s no suggestion that it‘s directly threatening the parks.
(E): Local support comes in the last paragraph and is clearly not what the author implies by ‗external degradation‘

Q4) The ―according to the passage...‖ start to the question tips you off to look for a dnesetail within the passage. Where is the scenario in the question mentioned? Go to the last paragraph, which discusses a combination of national and local responses. It argues that this cooperation is necessary in order to ―protect park wildlife.‖ If this cooperation doesn‘t occur then, wildlife would presumably be harmed. (D) rewards the careful reading.
(A): Out of Scope. The author never mentions any actual shrinking of national parks, only the danger to the existing land.
(B): Out of Scope. The author argues that the federal government already owns most of the land around national parks, and doesn‘t suggest anywhere that it will own more without cooperation.
(C): Out of Scope. The author never makes this argument in the passage either.
(D): The Correct Answer(E): Too specific. There is no direct connection between environmental cooperation and timber harvesting activities

mkeshri185 · Answer

For Q4 if TImber harvesting is too narrow then how can be the loss of species not too narrow? There is no where mentioned about the loss of species other than the same para for timber so both are equally valid answer.

egmat · Answer

mkeshri185 , you're right that both "loss of species" and "timber harvesting" appear in the same paragraph - this shows you're reading carefully. The key distinction isn't about location in the passage, but about the  relationship  between these concepts.

Understanding the Cause-Effect Hierarchy

Look at paragraph 4 again:  "Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem."

Notice the structure:
-  Causes  (specific activities): Timber harvesting, ranching, energy exploration
-  Effect  (general consequence): Wildlife threats/species loss

The passage presents timber harvesting as  one of several causes  that threaten wildlife. If federal-state cooperation doesn't improve, we won't just see more timber harvesting - we'll see continued damage from  all  these activities, leading to the broader consequence: species loss.

Why Option D is Correct

Think of it this way: Without cooperation, the passage suggests:
- Timber harvesting continues → threatens some species
- Ranching continues → threatens some species 
- Energy exploration continues → threatens some species
- Lack of coordination continues → limits protection efforts

All these factors  together  lead to →  Further loss of species  (Option D)

Option E (timber harvesting increase) captures only 1/3 of the problem, while Option D captures the  complete consequence  of all these unregulated activities.

Strategic Pattern Recognition

GMAT RC Pattern:  When you see multiple specific examples leading to one general consequence, the answer typically focuses on the  comprehensive effect  rather than any single cause.

Decision Framework:  If the passage mentions Problem A, B, and C all causing Result X → The likely consequence is more of Result X, not just more of Problem A.

If you want, you can practice similar cause-effect RC questions  here  (you'll find a lot of OG questions) - select Reading Comprehension under Verbal and choose Easy/Medium level questions to build stronger foundation on these questions.

Pranavsawant · Answer

Let's take a look at question 3. B says "threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies." I do agree that state governments have a role to play in the problem mentioned and they have a big role to play in mitigating the issue (if it is possible in the first place).

However, how do we know that the problems coming in from surrounding areas are a result of state government environmental policies? We know that they are a result of things happening beyond federal lands but is that due to the state's environmental policies?? That's a bit dubious cause first of all those environmental policies (if they exist) do not have jurisdiction over federal lands. And second, nowehere in the passage have they mentioned anything about any state policies. They allow timber harvesting but is that a part of legislation (a policy)?

I marked B purely based on the feel of the passage but it is not super precise.

miag · Answer

Hi,

You are correct in saying that states dont have jurisdiction inside national parks.  
  External degradation  refers to negative effects caused by activities outside the park's borders 
 The author then also proceeds to say that these issues continue due to state policies/legislation

Hope this helps!

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards