Question

jefferson should move forward with its plan to build storm-water storage tanks underground beneath backer 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.

Explanation:

The author responds to the traffic objection with a rhetorical question ("what's a little traffic headache...") instead of addressing the traffic issue (e.g., mitigation plans, duration impact). Option 2 is wrong as environmental benefits are emphasized. Option 3 is wrong as there's no bias against automobile use shown.

Answer:

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