18. Which of the following would be a cost of drilling for oil in Antarctica?

A. The supply of heating fuel would be increased.
B.There would be a greater opportunity to study wildlife there.
C. An oil spill could harm food sources for penguins.
D. Many new jobs would be created.

I got A for my answer

I disagree.

Is the answer C?

Yes. C is right.

To determine the correct answer, let's analyze each option:

A. The supply of heating fuel would be increased.
This option highlights a potential benefit of drilling for oil in Antarctica - an increase in the supply of heating fuel. However, the question asks for a cost, not a benefit. So, we can eliminate this option as it does not address the potential negative consequences or costs of drilling for oil in Antarctica.

B. There would be a greater opportunity to study wildlife there.
This option presents a potential benefit of drilling for oil in Antarctica - an increased opportunity to study wildlife. Similar to option A, this does not address the potential costs associated with drilling for oil. Therefore, this option can be eliminated.

C. An oil spill could harm food sources for penguins.
This option highlights a potential environmental consequence of drilling for oil in Antarctica - the possibility of an oil spill that could harm food sources for penguins. This represents a cost or negative impact of drilling for oil, making it a plausible answer.

D. Many new jobs would be created.
This option suggests a potential positive outcome of drilling for oil in Antarctica - the creation of new jobs. Like the previous options, this does not address the potential costs or negative consequences of drilling for oil in Antarctica. Thus, it can also be eliminated.

Now, based on the analysis, option C is the correct answer. An oil spill in Antarctica could indeed harm food sources for penguins, and thus represents a cost of drilling for oil in the region.