Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S2 · Q18 Environmental scientist: It is

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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).

Background

The government spends six times as much on wetland preservation now as it did 10 years ago, whereas the amount of wetlands to protect is only two times bigger.

If we take inflation into account, we're spending three times as much to deal with two times as much wetlands.

Surprising Claim

The government isn't currently spending enough on the preservation of wetlands

Evaluate

GIVEN THAT ... the govt spends 3x as much as we used to for an area that is only 2x what it used to be, HOW CAN IT BE THAT .... the govt isn't spending enough?

Well, it's possible that the government was spending scandalously low amounts ten years ago. In that case, you could triple the budget and still be woefully underfunding the enterprise.

There also might be something different between the wetlands we protected ten years ago and the "new" wetlands we're protecting now. It might be that the new wetlands we're trying to preserve are in much worse shape or pose much more costly challenges in terms of preserving them.

That would explain how the land area we're protecting has only doubled but the price of protecting it has more than doubled (the old land we were protecting was "cheaper to protect").

Goal

Look for an answer that combines with what we know to help give us the impression that the government needs to spend more money on these wetlands.

18.

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

  1. The governmental agency responsible for

    Unclear Impact

    This doesn't sound awful. It helps explain why we don't have as much money as we need. But there are two potential problems: - the answer doesn't clarify that mismanagement and efficiency is worse over the last ten years than it was before. (Since this paradox is comparing back to ten years ago, 3x funding > 2x area, we want to hear a difference that explains why 3x isn't good enough to cover 2x). - this doesn't actually help support the wording that "the current amount of funding is inadequate and should be augmented". It supports the idea that we don't have enough money, but the current funding may be plenty adequate; we're just wasting it through poorly run government.

    14% picked this

  2. Over the past ten years,

    Weaker Than Correct Answer

    This answer seems to somewhat help. It suggests that while the land has increased 2x, certain costs have also increased (the scientists' salaries). That could help explain why the money needed is more than 2x. However, this isn't a super strong idea, since we need to say that 3x the money still isn't enough. The salaries would either have to be a huge proportion of the overall cost of wetlands preservation, or the salaries would have needed to grow a ton (both of which aren't very plausible ideas).

    20% picked this

  3. Research over the past ten

    Deepens Paradox

    This answer makes it sound like because we're better at preserving wetlands nowadays, we do it more efficiently (preventative stuff is usually cheaper than dealing with a problem once it's fully blossomed).

    15% picked this

  4. More people today, scientists and

    Too Broad

    This has nothing to tell us specifically about our wetlands budget. It's just a glittering generality about ecological conscientiousness around the world.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    Unlike today, funding for the

    Why this is right

    This establishes the idea that funding ten years ago was woefully inadequate (almost nonexistent!) If you were only spending $1000 on wetlands preservation, and now you're spending $3000, adjusted for inflation, you're still not spending anywhere near enough money. It would be like if I said, "My financial advisor keeps telling me that I'm not saving enough for retirement, but after five years of working with her, I'm now putting TEN TIMES as much of my salary into my retirement accounts. How is this not enough?" Well, if prior to working with her, I was only putting 0.1 % of my salary into retirement and now I'm putting 1% of my salary into retirement, I'm still not saving enough.

    Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    48% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free