Question

jefferson should most forward with its plan to build storm-water storage tanks underground beneath becker boulevard. these tanks will allow excess rainwater during storms to be safely stored until it can be properly treated. currently, excess 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.

Explanation:

The author's response to the traffic - related objection is a rhetorical question ("But what's a little traffic headache compared to a cleaner environment?") instead of giving a serious, detailed response about how the traffic issue will be managed or mitigated. Option 2 is incorrect as the author does emphasize the environmental benefit. Option 3 is incorrect as there's no indication of a bias against automobile use.

Answer:

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