LSAT Explanation PT 24, S2, Q18: Environmental scientist: It is true that

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the environmental scientist's conclusion with the evidence cited above? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The environmental scientist presents the following premises:

1. Over the past ten years, there has been a sixfold increase in government funding for the preservation of wetlands.

2. The total area of wetlands needing such preservation has increased only twofold.

3. Even when inflation is taken into account, the amount of funding now is at least three times what it was ten years ago.

Based on these premises, the environmental scientist concludes that the current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.

Now, let's consider an "Evaluate" question for this argument: "Was the initial amount of funding for wetlands preservation ten years ago adequate?"

The question type of this problem is a Weaken question, which asks us to find the answer choice that most helps to reconcile the environmental scientist's conclusion with the evidence cited above.

Let's discuss each answer choice:

a) The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.

While this answer choice might explain why the current funding is inadequate, it does not address the relationship between the increase in funding and the increase in the area of wetlands needing preservation. Thus, it does not help to reconcile the conclusion with the evidence.

b) Over the past ten years, the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased at a rate higher than the inflation rate.

This answer choice suggests that a portion of the increased funding has been allocated to higher salaries for scientists. However, it does not provide enough information to determine if this increase in salaries is the primary reason for the current funding being inadequate. Moreover, it does not address the relationship between the increase in funding and the increase in the area of wetlands needing preservation.

c) Research over the past ten years has enabled scientists today to identify wetlands in need of preservation well before the areas are at serious risk of destruction.

This answer choice does not help to reconcile the conclusion with the evidence, as it does not address why the current funding is inadequate despite the sixfold increase in funding.

d) More people today, scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural resources, including wetlands.

This answer choice does not explain why the current funding is inadequate, as it only mentions that more people are working to preserve wetlands. It does not address the relationship between the increase in funding and the increase in the area of wetlands needing preservation.

e) Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.

This answer choice helps to reconcile the conclusion with the evidence, as it explains that the initial amount of funding ten years ago was extremely low. This means that even with a sixfold increase in funding, the current amount might still be inadequate to cover the preservation needs of the wetlands. Therefore, the correct answer is E.