QUESTION TEXT: Environmental scientist: It is true that over…
QUESTION TYPE: Paradox
PARADOX: Wetlands funding has increased faster than the amount of wetlands needing protection. But wetlands still need more funding.
ANALYSIS: We’re told that even ten years ago there were many wetlands to protect. That costs money. We’re not told how much money was available ten years ago. Maybe it wasn’t very much.
___________
- If this is true, then it’s hard to see why we should give the agency more money. They might just waste it.
- So? Maybe the salaries only increased 0.0001% faster than inflation. “Higher” is a vague word.
- This explains why there are more wetlands to protect. It doesn’t explain why the new money isn’t sufficient.
- This is impossibly vague. More could mean “three more people”, and they could be working to preserve forests. This affects nothing.
- CORRECT. This shows that wetlands funding started from a very low base. So even three times as much money might not be very much.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply