CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully... Start Learning for Free
Direction: 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.
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 state government environmental policies.
- c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.
- d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.
- e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongive...
Understanding External Degradation
The term "external degradation" in the passage refers specifically to threats posed to national parks by activities occurring outside of their boundaries, primarily driven by state government policies and land use practices. Here's a detailed breakdown:
Impact of State Government Policies
- National parks are surrounded by lands managed by state governments, which can engage in practices that negatively impact the parks.
- Activities such as timber harvesting, ranching, and energy exploration compete with wildlife and disrupt the local ecosystem.
Legislation and Regulation Limitations
- The National Park Organic Act restricts the National Park Service's authority to manage external threats unless they directly affect park resources.
- This limitation means that any harmful activities outside the parks are often unregulated, leading to degradation of the park environment.
Local Politicians and State Involvement
- Local politicians advocate for state involvement in park management, but this can lead to policies that prioritize local economic interests over environmental protection.
- While state involvement can be beneficial, it often results in insufficient attention to the fundamental issues of protecting wildlife and ecosystems within and adjacent to national parks.
Conclusion
The correct answer, option 'B', accurately encapsulates the essence of "external degradation" as it highlights the threats to national parks stemming from state government policies and the activities that occur in the surrounding areas. These external pressures ultimately affect the integrity of the national parks, necessitating a balanced approach to management that considers both local and national interests.
The term "external degradation" in the passage refers specifically to threats posed to national parks by activities occurring outside of their boundaries, primarily driven by state government policies and land use practices. Here's a detailed breakdown:
Impact of State Government Policies
- National parks are surrounded by lands managed by state governments, which can engage in practices that negatively impact the parks.
- Activities such as timber harvesting, ranching, and energy exploration compete with wildlife and disrupt the local ecosystem.
Legislation and Regulation Limitations
- The National Park Organic Act restricts the National Park Service's authority to manage external threats unless they directly affect park resources.
- This limitation means that any harmful activities outside the parks are often unregulated, leading to degradation of the park environment.
Local Politicians and State Involvement
- Local politicians advocate for state involvement in park management, but this can lead to policies that prioritize local economic interests over environmental protection.
- While state involvement can be beneficial, it often results in insufficient attention to the fundamental issues of protecting wildlife and ecosystems within and adjacent to national parks.
Conclusion
The correct answer, option 'B', accurately encapsulates the essence of "external degradation" as it highlights the threats to national parks stemming from state government policies and the activities that occur in the surrounding areas. These external pressures ultimately affect the integrity of the national parks, necessitating a balanced approach to management that considers both local and national interests.
Free Test
FREE
| Start Free Test |
Community Answer
Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongive...
The phrase “external degradation” in the passage refers to the adverse effects on national parks caused by activities and policies outside their boundaries. The passage highlights:
- Activities like timber harvesting, ranching, and energy exploration that “compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem” and contribute to degradation.
- The lack of state legislation prioritizing wildlife protection and the absence of coordinated planning by state environmental agencies, which exacerbate these threats.
- These issues stem from state government environmental policies (or their deficiencies), as states have jurisdiction over adjacent lands but often fail to regulate activities that harm park ecosystems.
Option A is incorrect because the House’s willingness to address issues is not a source of degradation; it’s an attempt to address it. Option C is incorrect because local politicians’ calls for state involvement are not the direct cause of degradation; rather, it’s the policies and activities enabled by state governments. Option D is wrong, as the National Park Organic Act governs internal park management, not external threats. Option E is too vague, as the passage focuses on specific activities and policies, not a general lack of local support. Thus, B is the most accurate, as state environmental policies (or their shortcomings) enable the activities causing external degradation.
 | Explore Courses for CAT exam |  |
Top Courses for CATView all
Top Courses for CAT
Question Description
Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2026 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2026 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2026 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2026 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction:Readthefollowing paragraphcarefully andanswerthequestiongivenbelow: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 Representatives willingness to address environmental issues.b)Threats to national parks arising from state government environmental policies.c)Threats to national parks arising from local politicians‘ calls for greater state involvement in national park planning.d)Threats to national parks arising from the National Park Organic Act.e)Threats to national parks arising from the lack of local support.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
| Explore Courses for CAT exam | |
Top Courses for CAT
Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
