In general, environmentalists enthusiastically support creating large wind farms to serve as a less-polluting substitute for coal-fired electric power plants. Environmentalists also enthusiastically support keeping as much land as possible under its natural vegetative cover. Critics have claimed that these two goals are actually in conflict, pointing out that the land area taken up by a coal-fired power plant is only a fraction of the area required for a wind farm of comparable generating capacity.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence on which the critics' position is based?
A. Much of the coal that fuels power plants is mined in vast strip mines, which leave large tracts of land completely barren for decades to come.
B. Much of the land area taken up by a coal-fired power plant is devoted to moving, storing, and preprocessing the coal that provides the plant's fuel.
C. Peak demand for electric power sometimes comes at times when a lack of wind puts wind farms well below their peak levels of output.
D. Whereas a wind farm must be located where there is substantial wind—the source of its power—a coal-fired power plant can be located at a distance from any source of coal.
E. Improved technology for coal-based power generation is allowing existing coal-fired power plants to produce more and more electricity without any increase in the size of the plant.
The critic's position emphasizes the role of the "land area taken up by" the two plants, so the answer should surely be related to that?
Attachment:
CR - 1.png [ 93.98 KiB | Viewed 1111 times ]