Environmental scientist: It is

Answer choices

1. A

   Unclear Impact14% picked this

   The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over

   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%
2. B

   Weaker Than Correct Answer21% picked this

   Over the past ten years, the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased at a

   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).

   21%
3. C

   Deepens Paradox16% picked this

   Research over the past ten years has enabled scientists today to identify wetlands in need of preservation well before the areas are

   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).

   16%
4. D

   Too Broad2% picked this

   More people today, scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural

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

   2%
5. E

   Correct47% picked this

   Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent

   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.

   47%