Critical Reasoning

Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years, there has been a sixfold increase in government funding for the preservation of wetlands while the total area of wetlands needing such preservation has increased only twofold (although this area was already large ten years ago). Even when inflation is taken into account, the amount of funding now is at least three times what it was ten years ago. Nevertheless, the current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the environmental scientist's conclusion with the evidence cited above?
(A) The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.
(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.
(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.
(D) More people today scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural resources including wetlands.
(E) Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.

please explain what the question stem

The funds have incresed by 6 times what it was 10 yrs ago. After adjusting for inflation it is 3 times. The protected area has incresed by 2 folds. So funds available per acerage is 1.5 times what it was 10 years ago or 50% extra fund.
Why is it still inadequate.
A) Needs better management not funds.
B) There is some extra funds to cushion for the salaries of the scientist. Unless salaries account for very high % of the total expenditure.
C) The scientists anticipates that with better methodology they will be able to take more and more wetland under its protection. This will require more funds.
IMO C.

thephoenix wrote:Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years, there has been a sixfold increase in government funding for the preservation of wetlands while the total area of wetlands needing such preservation has increased only twofold (although this area was already large ten years ago). Even when inflation is taken into account, the amount of funding now is at least three times what it was ten years ago. Nevertheless, the current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the environmental scientist's conclusion with the evidence cited above?
(A) The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.
(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.
(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.
(D) More people today scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural resources including wetlands.
(E) Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.

please explain what the question stem

[spoiler]IMO E. it says that the funding 10 yrs ago was only a meager amount. So, even if it has increased three folds, it is still inadequate.
[/spoiler]
What's the OA?

I will go with [spoiler]'E'[/spoiler]. Pls post OA and what's the source?

IMO : E

IMO -> A

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

The governmental agency is mismanaged and inefficient, therefore it cannot properly allocate and manage the funding.
Therefore, there is a need for more funding??

Is this logic incorrect?

How can E reconcile the scientist's conclusion with the evidence?

oa E
thanks for the explanation
source lsat