BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

government funding for the preservation of wetlands

Expert replies
by thephoenix » Sun May 09, 2010 10:37 pm
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
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by kstv » Mon May 10, 2010 12:27 am
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.
Join the discussion

by harshavardhanc » Mon May 10, 2010 12:40 am
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?
Regards,
Harsha
Join the discussion

by paddle_sweep » Mon May 10, 2010 8:30 pm
I will go with [spoiler]'E'[/spoiler]. Pls post OA and what's the source?
Join the discussion

by paes » Mon May 10, 2010 9:31 pm
IMO : E
Join the discussion

by nakul_anand » Thu May 13, 2010 2:52 am
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?
Join the discussion

by thephoenix » Thu May 13, 2010 8:24 am
oa E
thanks for the explanation
source lsat
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working
Join the discussion