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

Explanation:

The author dismisses the traffic disruption concern with a rhetorical question instead of providing a substantive response (like mitigation plans, timelines, or alternative routes) to address the opponents' actual worry. The other options are incorrect: the author already emphasized environmental benefits, and bias alone does not make the response inadequate—its lack of meaningful engagement with the objection does.

Answer:

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