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 what’s a little traffic headache compared to a cleaner environment?
why is the author’s 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 author’s bias against the community’s use of automobiles.

Question

Accepted Answer

To solve this, we analyze each option:

1. Option 1: The author’s response to traffic concerns is not “flippant” (casual) or avoiding the issue. The author notes traffic is a “little headache” compared to environmental benefits, which is a meaningful (though brief) address, so this is incorrect.
2. Option 2: The author’s response emphasizes environmental benefits (harm to wildlife, water quality from overflow vs. temporary traffic issues) but does not sufficiently highlight the storm - water tanks’ role? No—actually, the author’s focus is on environmental harm of current system vs. traffic impact of the plan. Wait, re - evaluating: The author argues the plan’s environmental benefits (preventing sewer overflow harm) outweigh traffic issues. But the question is why the response is inadequate. Wait, no—wait, the options are about why the author’s response to objections is inadequate. Wait, let's re - read the options. Option 2 says “It does not sufficiently emphasize the environmental benefits of the plan to build underground storm - water storage tanks.” But the author does emphasize environmental harm of current system (which the plan fixes) vs. traffic. Wait, maybe I misread. Wait, the author’s response: opponents complain about traffic; author says traffic is a “little headache” compared to cleaner environment (from preventing overflow). So the author’s response is inadequate because? Wait, option 2: If the response is supposed to defend the plan, does it not emphasize the environmental benefits enough? Wait, no—maybe option 1? No, option 1 says “flippant rhetorical question” —the author’s response is a comparison, not a rhetorical question. Option 3: “In favoring the environment, the response betrays the author’s bias against the community’s use of automobiles.” The author’s response is about traffic vs. environment, not a bias against car use. So back to option 2: The author’s response to traffic objections is to downplay traffic (call it a “little headache”) but does not sufficiently highlight the environmental benefits of the plan (the tanks) to justify the traffic impact. Wait, the plan is to build tanks to prevent overflow (environmental benefit). The author’s response to traffic objections is to say traffic is minor compared to environment. But does the response “not sufficiently emphasize the environmental benefits of the plan”? Maybe—because the author focuses on the harm of not doing the plan (current overflow) rather than the benefits of the plan (the tanks). But maybe the correct answer is Option 2? Wait, no—wait, let's check again. The author’s response: opponents say traffic will be bad; author says traffic is a small problem compared to the environment. So the author’s response is inadequate because it does not sufficiently emphasize the environmental benefits of the plan (the tanks) to show why the traffic cost is worth it? Or is it option 2? Wait, maybe I made a mistake. Let's re - analyze:

- Option 1: The author’s response is not a “flippant rhetorical question” —it’s a comparison, so eliminate.
- Option 2: The author’s response to traffic objections is to highlight environmental harm of not doing the plan, but does it “not sufficiently emphasize the environmental benefits of the plan” (the tanks)? The plan’s benefit is preventing that harm. So the author does emphasize the environmental need (benefit of the plan) by contrasting with traffic. Wait, maybe the answer is Option 2? Or is it Option 1? No, I think the correct answer is **Option 2**. Wait, no—wait, the question is “Why is the author’s response to potential objections inadequate?” Let's re - read the options:

1. It answers the traffic concern with a flippant rhetorical question rather than meaningfully addressing the issue. → The author’s response is a statement (traffic is a little headache vs. environment), not a rhetorical question. Eliminate.
2. It does not sufficiently emphasize the environmental benefits of the plan to build underground storm - water storage tanks. → The author’s response to traffic objections is to downplay traffic, but does it not emphasize the environmental benefits (the tanks’ role in preventing overflow) enough? The author says the environment will be cleaner, which is the benefit. But maybe the response is inadequate because it doesn’t “sufficiently” emphasize those benefits to justify the traffic impact. So this could be correct.
3. In favoring the environment, the response betrays the author’s bias against the community’s use of automobiles. → The author’s response is about traffic vs. environment, not a bias against car use. Eliminate.

# Answer: 2. It does not sufficiently emphasize the environmental benefits of the plan to build underground storm - water storage tanks.

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Answer: