RohitSaluja wrote:
Hi experts, please help me here with option B and C. I know that we have to select the best available option, but I am confused to see why C is better than B in this question.
The argument tells us a new power plant is needed, and it could either be a natural gas-fired plant or a waste-to-energy plant. It also mentions that the new power plant would also serve as trash incenerator.
The argument then mentions that waste to energy plant would produce three times as much air pollution as gas-fired but waste to energy is still supported by environmentalist.
My query with option B and C is below
(B) In the area where the utility operates, both energy use and the volume of trash produced have increased substantially over the last several years.
We do not know which plant would be able to meet this increased energy requirement so this can't strengthen/weaken our argument. The secon portion of option B says that
volume of trash has increase substantially, now if waste-to-energy plants would use this trash to produce energy then this option provides weak support that waste-to-energy might be useful than gas fired as they would reducde amount of trash, but again this is based on a big assumption.
(C) The waste-to-energy plant would replace an existing trash incinerator that produces much more air pollution than the waste-to-energy plant would.
This option does not tells us anything about gas fired plants, it only tells us that overall pollution will reduce if built waste to energy because it will replace the incinerator which produces more pollution, but given as part of the original plan, the plant is to function both as power plan and incenarator, it could be the case that if we go ahead with power plant we will have even more reduced level of pollution, as it might also render this ininerator(that produce more pollution than waste to energy) useless.
Appreciate your time and response.
Quote:
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. Surprisingly, although the waste-to-energy plant would produce roughly three times as much air pollution as the gas-fired plant, environmentalists have come out in unanimous support of this option.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to justify the environmentalists' position?
(A) Modem gas-fired power plants produce significantly less pollution than gas-fired power plants that were built several decades ago.
(B) In the area where the utility operates, both energy use and the volume of trash produced have increased substantially over the last several years.
(C) The waste-to-energy plant would replace an existing trash incinerator that produces much more air pollution than the waste-to-energy plant would.
(D) Most of the environmentalists believe that air pollution is the area's most serious environmental problem.
(E) The vast majority of the air pollution in the area where the utility operates is produced by trucks and automobiles.
Frankly, i chose B over C.
Now, when i analysed why B is incorrect I found following(may be i am giving an excuse that it is).
Two things that matter in the passage are:
1. Incinerating trash
2. Generate power
B. Does only 1st job
C. Does both jobs
The keyword in the passage is 'serve as both'. Thus, C encircles both the requirements. We can't rule out pollution aspect but see the words 'unanimous support'. Also, why we can't get rid of the pollution aspect is that because we are ingrained with pollution problem so much so that any thing revolving around that is forgotten even if pollution is sidelined or taken care of in the argument.
HTH.
close
19 Aug 2018, 02:09
20%
(02:02)
wrong 
