yogirb8801 wrote:
The noise caused by airplanes during takeoff and landing imposes a large burden on people who live or work near airports. When airports operate late at night or early in the morning, the disturbance can disrupt normal sleeping patterns, even leading to severe sleep deprivation disorders. When the flight paths of airplanes lie too close to the ground, the resulting noise interferes with work performance in nearby businesses and the peaceful enjoyment of life by residents in the proximity. However, the operation of an airport, unlike a neighbor who simply plays music too loudly, provides a valuable benefit to the surrounding community, in the form of convenient transportation for both personal and economic purposes. Thus the only option is to establish standards for the reasonable operation of airports and fine those that violate the guidelines.
The bolded phrase plays which of the following roles in the argument above?
1. It explains why one potential alternative to establishing a system of standards and fines is unacceptable.-
Correct- the argument is strengthened by contradicting the alternative..."the operation of an airport,
unlike a neighbor who simply plays music too loudly"
2. It provides background information that is not directly related to the conclusion of the argument.-
Incorrect-It is important for the conclusion
3. It supports a policy of stricter regulations for airports than for neighbors playing of music.-
Incorrect-It does not support the policy..infact it says that both music and airplanes causes noise ..but airplanes atleast provide benefits... music unnecessarily creates noise...
4. It undermines the argument advocating a system of regulations and fines for the unreasonable operation of an airport.-
Incorrect- infact a system of regulation is required according to the argument
5. It explains why some people choose to live near enough to airports to be affected by the noise.-
Incorrect-Contradicts the argument- Argument says that the noise causes a huge burden on the residents