Passage Summary: Even though the government is spending way more money on wetlands than it used to, and the amount of land needing help hasn't grown nearly as fast, an expert says we still aren't spending enough.

Conclusion: The current government funding for wetland preservation is insufficient and needs to be increased.

Reasoning: Despite a threefold inflation-adjusted increase in funding over ten years, the area of wetlands needing preservation has only doubled.

Analysis: The paradox here lies in the discrepancy between the growth of resources and the growth of the problem. We are looking for a reason why a 300% increase in funding is still 'inadequate' to cover a 100% increase in the land area requiring care. Perhaps the initial funding level was so abysmally low that even tripling it doesn't meet the basic needs, or perhaps the cost of preserving a single acre has increased dramatically. Look for an answer choice that explains why the current budget, despite its growth, still falls short of the actual costs required for preservation.