It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I can see why the other ACs are wrong, but I am having a difficult time seeing how C is absolutely correct. The stimulus states that water is being wasted and that the gov't was giving the industry a break. Therefore, tighter control would lead to ceasing inefficient use. Is "cease" really the key detail here? Are ACs like these common?
Comments
"will soon cease altogether" is just too strong, which is exactly what C says. We can reasonably assume that having to pay for water could affect their usage, and likely toward using less, but there is no support for a complete cessation of inefficient water use. What if profits exponentially outpace the full cost of water even when wasted? What if correcting the inefficiencies is prohibitively expensive? You have to pay for water... do you never waste it?