Disaster Relief

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope7% picked this

   Although inefficiencies have long been present in international disaster relief programs, they have been aggravated in recent years by increased demands

   Out of Scope: limited resources Out of Scope: aggravated inefficiencies Unknown Comparison: increased demands The passage never says anything about relief agencies' limited resources. The only time we talk about resources is in the 2nd paragraph, where it talks about "a large influx of resources" being taxing on the local infrastructure. We know that disasters in recent years "have forced people to reevaluate the ways in which they respond in the aftermaths of disasters", but the passage doesn't say that there have been increased demands that have aggravated inefficiencies.

   7%
2. B

   Out of Scope: little interest2% picked this

   Local communities had expressed little interest in taking responsibility for their own preparedness prior to the most recent years, thus leaving donors and

   We know that in the past we haven't done a good job with involving local communities in planning for their disaster relief preparedness. But we don't know that this is because the local communities have expressed little interest. The passage suggests it's more likely that this is because donors are only motivated to get involved in the immediate aftermath. So the local communities might have had a lot of interest in taking responsibility for their own preparedness, but relief agencies aren't necessarily reaching out to them to start a dialogue. In other words, this passage was more about blaming the inefficient methodologies of relief agencies and donors, whereas this answer feels more like it's blaming the local communities.

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong: most needs / few questioned9% picked this

   Numerous relief efforts in the years prior to the most recent provided such vast quantities of aid that most needs were met despite evidence

   This has some loaded claims we can't find support for. The disasters in recent years spurred us to reconsider our methods, but that's not because "The recent relief efforts were terrible, whereas the ones before that were good!" This answer is saying that prior to the last couple years, disaster relief efforts were awesome: most needs were met / few communities questioned traditional disaster response methods. We can't find language to support either of those strong claims. This answer also makes it sound like the reason these previous efforts were so good is that "the quantity of aid was so vast" that it took care of mostly everything. Meanwhile, the passage is telling us that a large influx of aid is sometimes counterproductive and can lead to a secondary "disaster".

   9%
4. D

   Out of Scope: long argued7% picked this

   Members of communities affected by disasters have long argued that they should set the agenda for relief efforts, but relief agencies have only recently

   We know that relief agencies have only recently started trying to create more of a dialogue with vulnerable communities before disaster strikes. But this answer adds some backstory that makes it sound like for years and years, the local communities were imploring relief agencies to do so (they've "long argued for this"), and the relief agencies were hearing them and saying "Sorry, you're wrong" until recently. We can't support that backstory.

   7%
5. E

   Correct75% picked this

   A number of wasteful relief efforts in the most recent years provided dramatic illustrations of aid programs that were implemented by donors and agencies

   Why this is right

   There's no visible support sentence for the causal connection described here: "recent disasters dramatically illustrated that aid programs were implemented with little accountability to affected populations" But this answer seems best supported by the logic of the passage. The passage says - a number of natural disasters in recent years have forced relief agencies and donors to reevaluate the way they respond. The verb "forced to reevaluate" is what's conveying the nature of "dramatically illustrated that there's a problem with the status quo". We hear about part of the problem - teams of uninvited relief experts and personnel flood the city The passage goes on to tell us the "solutions" it has in mind, and we can infer that anything found in a "solution" is something that we haven't previously been doing. - to develop a more effective approach .... a response that produces lasting benefit ... requires that community members define the form and method of aid most appropriate to their needs. - the practical effect of this approach is that aid (in the future would) take the form of a response to the stated desires of those affected rather than an immediate, though less informed, action on their behalf. We have to put all this together to support this answer. What we've learned from recent disasters is that we should be more accountable to local communities (talk to them in advance about what they want / need and follow their lead) rather than rapidly infusing the area with an influx of aid and uninvited outsiders.

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

   75%