Pre-think:
Aim: Less pollution and preserve natural vegetative cover
Facts: More wind farm than coal = Less pollution
Also, wind farm takes more area than coal powered plant. This is against second aim and also what critics are pointing to.
To weaken critics argument, we must look for a point that states that coal powered plant has more adverse effects on natural vegetative cover than the wind farm:
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.
This looks like what we thought. Coal required for coal powered plants leaves the land barrenB. 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.
Nope. We don't care how the land devoted to coal plant is usedC. Peak demand for electric power sometimes comes at times when a lack of wind puts wind farms well below their peak levels of output.
IrrelevantD. 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.
Location of plants doesn't matter. IrrelevantE. 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.
Efficineny of plants is not under discussion. Irrelevant