Researcher: Soils are adversely affected by road salts used to melt

Official Explanation

There is insufficient information to link drinking water to the agriculture official’s argument, therefore the third option is eliminated.

While the high cost of removing salts from soil in abandoned salt yards could strengthen the official’s case, additional information would need to be presented. For instance, if additional salt yards had been proposed, then switching to sand as a road treatment method could prevent further environmental damage. In the absence of such additional information, the high cost of removing salts from soil in abandoned salt yards does not, in itself, strengthen the official’s case significantly.

The statement that most strengthens the official’s case is that runoff from roads is often absorbed by farmland. Unlike the statement about salt yards, this indicates that maintaining the use of salt as a road treatment presents an immediate consequence for food production—a consequence the agriculture official wants to avoid.

The correct answer is Runoff from roads is often absorbed by farmland.

The high number of road accidents attributable to untreated roads in winter could weaken the case if the official had proposed not treating the roads at all, but as the agriculture official offered sand as an alternative, this option does not affect the official’s proposal. If true, the statement comparing the effectiveness of sand as a road treatment to the effectiveness of salt provides an argument against the use of sand that the official’s argument does not address.

The correct answer is Sand is much less effective than salt at making roads safe to drive in winter conditions.