LSAT 101 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q18

LR Question 18 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past…

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.

___________

1. If this is true, then it’s hard to see why we should give the agency more money. They might just waste it.
2. So? Maybe the salaries only increased 0.0001% faster than inflation. “Higher” is a vague word.
3. This explains why there are more wetlands to protect. It doesn’t explain why the new money isn’t sufficient.
4. This is impossibly vague. More could mean “three more people”, and they could be working to preserve forests. This affects nothing.
5. CORRECT. This shows that wetlands funding started from a very low base. So even three times as much money might not be very much.

Recap: The question begins with “Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past”. It is a Paradox question. Learn more about LSAT Paradox questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.