Self-study
An electric utility has determined that a new power plant is needed and has decided to build either a natural gas-fired plant or a waste-to-energy plant that would serve as both a trash incinerator and a power plant. █████████████ ████████ ███ ███████████████ █████ █████ ███████ ███████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ █████████████████ ████ ████ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████
Summary
Environmentalists support building a waste-to-energy power plant instead of a gas-fired plant, despite the fact that the waste-to-energy plant will produce much more air pollution. The stimulus doesn't give any reasons why the environmentalists might find the waste-to-energy plant preferable, so we need to find some support to justify their position.
Objective: Find Support
The only difference we're aware of between the waste-to-energy plant and the gas-fired plant is that the former produces more air pollution. For the environmentalists to nonetheless support the waste-to-energy option, it needs to have some environmental benefit that outweighs the cost of air pollution. For example, maybe the waste it burns would do even more harm to the environment if it were not converted to energy. Alternatively, the gas-fired plant could have a major drawback, like the environmental damage of sourcing fuel. The correct answer will give us at least one of these elements.
1.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████████████ █████████
a
Modern gas-fired power ██████ ███████ █████████████ ████ █████████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ███████ ███████ ████
The changes in gas-fired plants over time aren't relevant, because the only comparison we care about is between the current waste-to-energy and gas-fired options—and we already know the waste-to-energy plant loses on air pollution. This doesn't help justify the position that the waste-to-energy plant is still preferable.
b
In the area █████ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ █████████ █████████████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ██████
Increasing energy use could explain why a new plant is needed, but that isn't relevant to which new plant we should build. If increased trash production had some environmental impact that could be offset by the waste-to-energy plant that might be helpful, but without that information, this just isn't relevant.
c
The waste-to-energy plant █████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ███████████████ █████ ██████
This describes an advantage to building the waste-to-energy plant, so it helps justify the environmentalists’ position. The waste-to-energy plant could reduce environmental harm by preventing another source of air pollution, so it's preferable to the gas-fired plant, which presumably would not replace the incinerator.
d
Most of the █████████████████ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ █████████████ ████████
This does nothing to support the environmentalists’ position, because the waste-to-energy plant produces more air pollution than the gas-fired plant. We need an answer that helps justify their support for the waste-to-energy plant, but this doesn't add any advantages for that option.
e
The vast majority ██ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████████
The environmentalists are concerned with comparing the effects of two different power plant options; other sources of pollution are irrelevant to this comparison. This doesn't give us any reason why the waste-to-energy plant should be preferred, so it can't justify the environmentalists' position.