Self-study
Activist: Accidents at the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear plants have shown the dangers of nuclear power. ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ █████████ ████████ █ ██████████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ██████ █████ ███ █████████████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ████████
Summarize Argument
The activist concludes that a new technology to derive oil from sewage sludge improves our ability to turn away from nuclear power and move towards environment-friendly energy. In support, the activist explains that this sewage-sludge oil can be used to generate power.
The activist's claim that this new oil will allow us to use cleaner energy relies on assessing the costs and benefits of energy production options. We're only given a single benefit of the new oil—that it can be used as fuel—so any information that informs us of other costs and benefits of this oil relative to nuclear power would be useful to evaluate the argument.
11.
Which one of the following ██████████████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
whether the current ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████████ ██████
This is useful to evaluate a potential benefit of the new oil. If the current method is harmful, then using sewage sludge for oil instead would directly reduce environmental harms, strengthening the argument.
b
whether the processes ████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████
This isn't useful; it's not relevant at all. The new oil is produced only after the sewage sludge is separated out; the actual separation process is happening regardless, so it doesn't represent a cost or a benefit.
c
whether the cost ██ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ █████ ██ ████████████ ███████████
This is useful to evaluate a potential cost of the new oil. If the new oil isn’t economically sustainable, that would weaken the claim that the new oil is a viable way to meet our energy needs, environmental benefits or not.
d
whether the burning ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████████ ███████ █████ ████ █████ ████ █ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████
This is useful to evaluate a potential cost of the new oil. If the new oil has an environmentally-harmful effect that nuclear power doesn't have, that would weaken the argument that the new oil is environmentally superior.
e
whether waste products ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ███████ ████
This is useful to evaluate a potential cost of the new oil. If such products were produced, then the new oil would seem to have one of the same problems the author cites about nuclear power, which would weaken the argument.