A recent report on an environmental

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak: not 100%9% picked this

   The government does not actually provide a full 100 percent of

   Even if the government only provides 90% of the program's funding, the program would still be reliant on government funding, so this is not countering the authors' claim that they need continued government funding.

   9%
2. B

   Correct71% picked this

   The program will continue to have numerous serious problems precisely because it lacks a coherent

   Why this is right

   This allows us to say, "See? You should have laid out a coherent vision for the future. Otherwise you can't solve your problems, and so you can't regain your reputation for competence, and so you can't get your continued funding." In a sense, the author was defending the report like, "Look, FIRST we'll fix these problems. THEN, we'll worry about the plan for the future." And this answer is saying, "Nope, wrong order. You need the plan for the future in order to solve the problems."

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

   71%
3. C

   Mixed Impact7% picked this

   The program had a coherent vision at its inception, but that vision has proved

   The author could use this to say, "Visions for the future are pointless. We had one before and it was impossible to sustain." And we could use it to say, "We need a new vision, because the old one isn't realistic." In either case, it wouldn't be responding to the author's objection that the immediate priorities are funding / reputation for competence.

   7%
4. D

   No Impact7% picked this

   The government has threatened to cut off funding for the program but has not acted

   The government's threat to cut off funding might reinforce the necessity of appearing competent, but it doesn't undermine the authors' position about focusing on pragmatic solutions for funding.

   7%
5. E

   Opposite (if anything)7% picked this

   The program has acquired a worse reputation for incompetence than

   If the program has an undeserved bad reputation, this could support the authors in suggesting that improving competence reputation can effectively address a critical barrier to funding, rather than undermine the position taken by the authors.

   7%