Question

jefferson should move forward with its plan to build storm - water storage tanks underground beneath becker boulevard. these tanks will allow sewer overflow during storms to be safely stored until it can be properly treated. currently, sewer overflow runs directly into jefferson bay, where it wreaks havoc on the water quality. this is not only detrimental to fish and other wildlife in the bay, but also causes the water to emit offensive odors. opponents of the plan complain that it will shut down traffic on becker boulevard for several months. but whats a little traffic headache compared to a cleaner environment? why is the authors response to potential objections inadequate? 1 it answers the traffic concern with a flippant rhetorical question rather than meaningfully addressing the issue. 2 it does not sufficiently emphasize the environmental benefits of the plan to build underground storm - water storage tanks. 3 in favoring the environment, the response betrays the authors bias against the communitys use of automobiles.

Explanation:

The author's response to the traffic concern is a rhetorical question ("But what's a little traffic headache compared to a cleaner environment?") which is flippant and does not actually address the traffic issue meaningfully. Option 2 is incorrect as the environmental benefits are already emphasized (cleaner water quality, no harm to wildlife). Option 3 is incorrect as there's no indication of a bias against automobile use - the focus is on traffic disruption vs environmental gain.

Answer:

1. It answers the traffic concern with a flippant rhetorical question rather than meaningfully addressing the issue.