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.

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.

Which one of the following is consistent with the frontier ethic?Expanding the area covered by a wildlife sanctuaryProtecting a natural area as a national parkSustainable logging of a forestTransferring ownership of forestland from private ownership to the federal governmentExtracting copper ore from mineral-rich deposit in a landscape rich in biodiversity

Which of the following does not fall under in-situ conservation?a.Botanical Gardenb.National Parkc.Sanctuaryd.Biosphere reserve

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

Read the following excerpt from "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman:With no dredging, Central Park's ponds and reservoir have been reincarnated as marshes. Without natural grazers — unless horses used by hansom cabs and by park policemen managed to go feral and breed — Central Park's grass is gone. A maturing forest is in its place, radiating down former streets and invading empty foundations.Which best explains how the structure of this passage supports the author's purpose?A.The passage shows the effects of human activity on Central Park to prove that laws protecting the environment are necessary for human survival.B.The passage compares the Central Park from before and from during a posthuman world to underscore that pollution levels will remain the same.C.The passage traces several events in the order that they will occur to highlight how people have harmed the environment in Central Park.D.The passage describes how the absence of human activity will change Central Park to show that nature will eventually destroy what people have built.SUBMITarrow_backPREVIOUS