miliya23 wrote:
CAn you please explain the argument?i am not able to understand the highlighted part
We have to decrease oil consumption or we have had to decrease
I think it means we have to decrease it not it is already less
Posted from my mobile device
Quote:
Mr. Meltzer: Limits on offshore oil drilling here have cost consumers a lot of money over the past decade, due to the high price of importing oil.
Ms Mantel: I disagree. Relying on imported oil has meant that we have had to limit our energy use. This, in turn, has enabled us to concentrate on alternative sources, such as solar energy and conservation.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen Ms. Mantel's attempt to refute Mr. Meltzer's claim?
1. There are high tariffs on imported oil.
2. There has been a significant decline in national oil consumption over the past dacade.
3. Present savings on energy expenses are partly due to offshore drilling.
4. Efforts to find alternative energy sources have led to dead ends.
5. The trend among energy experts is to explore all energy options.
Hi,
mr meltzer says that government has restricted OWN companies from carrying out extensive drilling OIL, and thus less oil is produced within and more is imported ..
Ms Mantel counters by saying that since the country is relying on OIL from other countries, it has restricted oil's usage due to limited quantity and has rather used money that would other wise be spent on off-shore drilling in researching and working on alternate sources such as solar etc
Choice B says that the country is relying LESS on the OIL, so the plan to work on alternate sources has succeeded