Loading...
In general, environmentalists enthusiastically support creating large wind farms to serve as a less-polluting substitute for coal-fired electric power plants. Environmentalists also enthusiastically support keeping as much land as possible under its natural vegetative cover. Critics have claimed that these two goals are actually in conflict, pointing out that the land area taken up by a coal-fired power plant is only a fraction of the area required for a wind farm of comparable generating capacity.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence on which the critics' position is based?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In general, environmentalists enthusiastically support creating large wind farms to serve as a less-polluting substitute for coal-fired electric power plants. |
|
| Environmentalists also enthusiastically support keeping as much land as possible under its natural vegetative cover. |
|
| Critics have claimed that these two goals are actually in conflict, pointing out that the land area taken up by a coal-fired power plant is only a fraction of the area required for a wind farm of comparable generating capacity. |
|
The passage presents two environmentalist goals, then introduces critics who argue these goals conflict with each other based on land usage evidence.
Critics claim that supporting both wind farms and land preservation creates a conflict because wind farms require much more land than coal plants.
The critics use a direct comparison of land requirements (coal plants vs. wind farms) to support their claim that environmentalists face contradictory goals.
Weaken - We need to find information that undermines the critics' evidence that wind farms require much more land than coal plants for the same power output
The critics' claim is specifically about land area comparison - they say coal plants use only a fraction of the land that wind farms need for comparable generating capacity. We need to focus on what makes this land area comparison misleading or irrelevant
To weaken the critics' evidence, we need to find scenarios that show why the simple land area comparison doesn't actually support their conclusion that environmental goals conflict. We can attack this by showing the land comparison is misleading, incomplete, or doesn't account for important differences in how the land is actually used or affected
This choice directly attacks the critics' evidence by revealing that their land comparison is incomplete and misleading. The critics only compare the land used by the actual facilities, but coal power requires vast strip mines that leave land 'completely barren for decades.' This shows the critics ignored a major land requirement for coal power, making their comparison irrelevant and seriously undermining their evidence.
This choice discusses land used within the coal plant facility itself for coal storage and processing. However, this doesn't undermine the critics' evidence because the critics already accounted for the total area of coal-fired power plants. Whether that area is used for turbines or coal storage doesn't change the land footprint comparison that forms the basis of the critics' argument.
This choice addresses the reliability of wind power during peak demand periods. While this might be relevant to energy policy discussions, it doesn't address or undermine the critics' specific evidence about land area requirements. The critics' argument is based purely on land usage comparison, not power generation reliability.
This choice explains that coal plants can be located away from coal sources while wind farms must be where there's wind. This is about location flexibility, not land area requirements. Since it doesn't address the total amount of land needed for each type of power generation, it doesn't undermine the critics' evidence about land usage.
This choice discusses improved efficiency of existing coal plants, allowing more electricity production without increasing plant size. However, this doesn't affect the critics' current comparison of land requirements between existing coal plants and wind farms of comparable capacity, so it doesn't undermine their evidence.