***
This Reading Comprehension question is from the June 2004 LSAT.
We see from the context (about lines 42-58) that the author is saying that there is danger in oil exploration because people don't know how well the casings (metal tubes, line 47) will work to prevent contamination or if a misunderstanding of the area's geology (line 58) could result in danger. That's the "danger of insufficient knowledge." We can pre-phrase something like "the author was talking about not knowing enough about the contaminants and geology." With that context in mind, let's start eliminating answers:
A) Beyond the scope of what the author was talking about. He says that we may not know what may lead to contamination (misunderstanding of the geology, etc). He doesn't say that we don't know that contamination itself is a danger.
B) A failure to comprehend falls along the lines of not knowing enough. This is the answer.
C) Other methods are beyond the scope. We're concerned with potential environmental problems, not the type of methods being used.
D) Beyond the scope of what the author's talking about here. He's saying that the regulations are insufficient and/or lag behind the industry, not that regulations are hard to make.
E) It's too narrow in scope.
Remember:
1) Pre-phrase an answer when there's a definite one (as there was here, namely what the author meant by a certain phrase) to save time slogging through wrong answers and to make sure you don't get tripped up by a wrong answer choice.
2) Make sure the scope is not beyond what the author's talking about or so narrow that it doesn't address the question's whole context.
