Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jun 0803:00 PM PDT
-04:00 PM PDT
15 Full-length GMAT FE mocks with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jun 0701:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Jun 0808:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Master the GMAT with expert live instruction, a personalized study plan, and real-time support. Includes 40 hours of online classes plus 6 months of access to the TTP GMAT OnDemand video course. Mon/Wed June 8, 2026 →August 12, 2026 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..- Jun 10
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Scoring 715 on the GMAT Focus Edition requires more than just learning formulas, memorizing concepts, or solving hundreds of questions. In this episode, Nishant shares how he improved his GMAT preparation by focusing on application of concepts, and more. 
Jun 1111:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
TTP GMAT OnDemand gives serious students 400+ hours of expert video instruction, the full TTP course, AI support, weekly office hours, and a 715+ score guarantee—all built for elite GMAT score improvement.
05 Nov 2019, 01:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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
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.
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
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
05 Nov 2019, 01:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
Aditya7229
Discussed here: once-surrounded-and-protected-by-vast-wilderness-many-of-the-national-258333.html Hope it helps.
Please follow our rules when posting: rc-forum-rules-must-read-155874.html Thank you.
TOPIC IS LOCKED AND ARCHIVED.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
