Consider this claim:The federal government should protect national parks by limiting the number of visitors allowed.Which is the strongest evidence to support the claim?In recent years, the National Park Service has reported a backlog of underfunded projects due to aging infrastructure, budget restraints, and staffing shortages.Staff at Yosemite National Park report that an increase in visitors has led to problems such as smog and trail erosion.One recent visitor to a national park posted the following review on a popular website: "The experience was disturbing. It was like going to an amusement park: long lines, tons of traffic, trash strewn everywhere."Save answer

As the CEO of a growing online travel service, you want to ensure that your company promotes trips that are popular with travelers of all ages. Which of the following statements uses authority to make your argument?a.My entire family, ages 2 to 45, enjoyed our last visit to a national park.b.It is believed that national parks may be a good trip option for people of all ages.c.Since data shows that all ages enjoy outdoor concerts, they would probably also enjoy national parks.d.In recent data released by the National Park Service, attendance in 2020 nearly doubled over attendance in 2019 and represented multiple age groups.

Q1Correct  |  Hard  |  1m 57sDirection: Read the following paragraph carefully and answer the question given below:Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources.Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy.Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife.Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem.Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation.The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions. What is the main purpose of the author in writing the passage? a.Argue that rampant timber harvesting is degrading national parks.  b.Describe a plan of action to resolve an issue. c.Discuss different approaches to dealing with a problem. d.Suggest that local participation is necessary to solve the problem described. e.To assert that national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries.

An environmental study was conducted. It reported that, for a park, having more visitors indicates having a larger number of trees. What can be determined?There is no correlation between number of visitors and number of trees.There is a correlation between number of visitors and number of trees. However, there is no causation. This is because there is an increase in the number of trees with an increase in the number of visitors.There is a correlation between number of visitors and number of trees. There may or may not be causation. Further studies would have to be done to determine this.

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources.Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy.Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife.Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem.Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation.The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.In the context of the passage, the phrase external degradation (lines 8-9) refers to which of the following:  a.Threats to national parks arising from the House of Representative's willingness to address environmental issues. b.Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.c.Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies. d.Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act. e.Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources.Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy.Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife.Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem.Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation.The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.The passage provides support for which of the following assertions? a.The National Park Organic Act gave the Secretary of the Interior the right to overrule state government policy in lands adjacent to national parks.  b.The federal government has been selling national park land to state governments in order to raise money for wildlife conservation.  c.The actions of state governments have often failed to promote the interests of national park wildlife.  d.Local politicians want the federal government to turn control of national parks over to state governments.e.Timber harvesting and energy exploration have not had any impact on national parks.