Loading...
Winter storms in Lakeville cause icy road conditions, which the Department of Public Works alleviates by applying road salt after storms. It takes far less salt to prevent icy conditions by applying salt before a winter storm, however, than it does to melt the ice after the fact. In order to reduce the environmental damage caused by salt on Lakeville's main roads, the department plans to apply salt to those roads whenever a winter storm is predicted.
Which of the following would be most useful to establish in evaluating the plan's chances for success?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Winter storms in Lakeville cause icy road conditions, which the Department of Public Works alleviates by applying road salt after storms. |
|
| It takes far less salt to prevent icy conditions by applying salt before a winter storm, however, than it does to melt the ice after the fact. |
|
| In order to reduce the environmental damage caused by salt on Lakeville's main roads, the department plans to apply salt to those roads whenever a winter storm is predicted. |
|
The argument moves from describing the current problem (storms cause icy roads, salt is applied after), to presenting key information (pre-storm salting uses less salt), to proposing a solution (switch to pre-storm salting to reduce environmental damage).
The Department of Public Works plans to apply salt before predicted winter storms to reduce environmental damage.
The plan relies on the premise that using less salt (by applying it before storms) will cause less environmental damage. The logic connects salt efficiency to environmental benefits - if we use less salt, we'll harm the environment less.
Evaluate - We need to find what information would help us determine whether the plan will actually succeed in reducing environmental damage
The plan is very specific: apply salt before storms (when predicted) to main roads to reduce environmental damage. The key claim is that using less salt (before vs after) will reduce environmental damage
For evaluate questions, we need to think of assumptions underlying the plan and create scenarios that would either make the plan work great or fail completely. We should focus on potential gaps between the plan's logic and real-world implementation
How much road salt costs the department - This focuses on financial costs rather than environmental impact. While cost might influence implementation, it doesn't help us evaluate whether the plan will actually achieve its stated goal of reducing environmental damage. The argument is about using less salt to help the environment, not about saving money.
How frequently winter storms predicted for Lakeville fail to arrive - This is crucial for evaluating the plan's success. If storm predictions are frequently wrong and storms don't arrive, the department will be applying salt unnecessarily. This could result in using MORE total salt than the current system (where they only salt when storms actually happen), completely undermining the environmental goal. The plan's success hinges on prediction accuracy.
What proportion of Lakeville's minor roads are salted after storms - The plan specifically targets main roads only, so information about minor roads doesn't help evaluate this particular plan's effectiveness. This is about a different scope of roads than what the plan addresses.
How often Lakeville experiences winter storms - This tells us the frequency of storms but doesn't help evaluate whether the new approach will use less salt than the current approach. Whether there are 5 storms or 50 storms per year, the plan's logic about pre-storm salting being more efficient would apply equally.
What percentage of accidents that occur as a result of icy conditions on Lakeville's roads occur on minor roads - This is about accident distribution and safety outcomes, but the plan's goal is environmental damage reduction, not accident prevention. This information doesn't help us evaluate whether less salt will be used overall.