Question

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 against the communitys use of automobiles.

Explanation:

The author responds to the traffic - concern by asking a rhetorical question "But what's a little traffic headache compared to a cleaner environment?" instead of providing a substantial, meaningful answer to the traffic - related objection.

Answer:

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