Perhaps the factory must invest a huge amount of capex into maintaining its existing supply of power, for example, it must replace a broken hydroelectric turbine whose cost dwarfs the cost of a new thermovoltaic generator. Therefore the new generator need not pay for itself to save the plant money and the assumption is not necessary :(

@RobertCarlson But that actually does not whatsoever imply his approval or disapproval of the character. Having a character meet a bad end does not mean he disapproves of the character. If that were the case then there would be no tragic deaths in film or literature. Everyone would deserve their fate. Also, given Allen's unexamined personal and psychological issues alluded to by the writer, how are we, or how is he himself even, to know his true feelings about these characters? The artist characters are stand-ins for the artist himself. Are we supposed to make the insane logical leap that because bad things befall artists in his movies, Woody Allen disapproves of both them and himself? This is just completely unsupported in the text and requires completely unjustified logical leaps to get there. Sorry but the question writers were sleeping on this one.

@LowriThomas But that is not what it says. If such systems exist, then basins "may" abound in the work of scientists. We are missing, logically, a step that implies that the existence of these basins in models would mean that they in fact do abound in real-world experiments. We are given nothing to indicate that the failure to replicate experimental results is due to riddled basins of attraction, rather than anything else that might conceivably cause experimental replication to fail, such as bad equipment, improper procedures, contamination. If the author is confident that the existence of unstable systems in models WOULD call into question one of the foundations of science (a very high bar!), she does so on the basis of information not included in the passage, and not implied by its wording. This is a terribly written question.