Choice B does not connect the conclusion to the evidence. It does provide a reason for the sixfold increase in funding, but it doesn't tell us why the funding is still inadequate. Choice E explains why a sixfold increase would still fall short of the required level of funding. If the funding ten years ago was almost nonexistent, such an increase would not likely represent a large number. The wetlands area, on the other hand, was already large ten years ago (stimulus). Thus, although the rate of funding increase is outpacing the rate of size increase, such an initial disparity between the levels explains how the level of funding could still be inadequate.