Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years, there has been a sixfold increase in government ...

Margarita on July 16 at 09:58AM

Please explain the answer choices

Emil-Kunkin on July 17 at 01:55PM

The author tells us that even adjusted for inflation, funding for wetland protection has increased faster than the amount of land protected. This means that for every unit of protected land, the amount of land spent as increased. The author then tries to convince us that we should still increase funding further because the current funding is inadequate.

We should expect the right answer to be some reason why despite the increase funding is still inadequate.

A if anything gives a reason to not increase funds. If the management is inefficient, then they should fix the management rather than thrown more money at it.

B looks promising but just doesn't give us enough to work with. While salaries may have increased faster than inflation, we don't know if they have increased faster than the rate that funding has increased. More importantly while this may partly explain why funding has also outpaced inflation, it doesn't explain why even more increases are needed for the future.

C isn't really relevant. I think we would assume a number of things to make this even close to what we want.

D is also just irrelevant.

E does give us what we need. If funding in the past was woefully inadequate, a 1.5 real raise in funds per unit of land would still be inadequate.