Approach 1 to extract nickel : Mining and refining.
Approach 2 to extract nickel : SP, plant that absorbs and stores nickel
destroyed the crop containing nickel to ask-> chemically extracted nickel -> 100 ponds nickel per acre
Total cost per pound slightly above via mining.
From the question stem:
Conclusion : the use of SP to extract nickel will be commercially adopted
Approach : comparative approach:
we know out of 2 approaches one is to be adopted.
Advantage of the chosen one over the other.
Advantage=Benefit-Effort
we know that the effort (cost per acre in this case) is almost same, hence benefit of the SP has to offset the one of the mining.
Benefits via SP could be that:
1. the nickel extracted is in the purest form
2. the amount of nickel extracted is more.
3. people are willing to buy the nickel at higher price.
4. the nickel extracted doesn't add up to pollution and the people do care about it.
5. the nickel extraction may help with the condition of the land that would have been destroyed had the extraction been done using the mining.
(A) The season in which the researchers grew Streptanthus was an unusually favorable one, with the right amount of precipitation to maximize the growth rate of Streptanthus.
Irrelevant.
(B) Because lowering the concentration of nickel in the soil can make land much better for agriculture in general, a plot in which Streptanthus has been grown and harvested can be sold for substantially more than it cost
Perfect.Goes with benefit 5
(C) More air pollution is generated for each pound of nickel produced by extracting it from Streptanthus than is generated using conventional mining and refining
Weakener.
(D) The land on which the researchers planted Streptanthus was unusually free of the various weeds that can compete with Streptanthus for water, nutrients, and sunlight.
Irrelevant.
(E) It is extremely rare for soil to contain higher concentrations of nickel than the concentrations present in the researchers’ experimental plot.
Irrelevant.