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 what's a little traffic headache compared to a cleaner environment?
Why is the author's response to potential objections inadequate?
It answers the traffic concern with a flippant rhetorical question rather than meaningfully addressing the issue
It does not sufficiently emphasize the environmental benefits of the plan to build underground storm-water storage tanks.
In favoring the environment, the response betrays the author's bias against the community's use of automobiles.
The author's response to potential objections is inadequate because it answers the traffic concern with a flippant rhetorical question rather than meaningfully addressing the issue. By dismissing the traffic concern with a rhetorical question, the author fails to acknowledge the legitimate inconvenience that shutting down traffic on Becker Boulevard for several months may cause for the community. Instead of providing a thoughtful response that addresses the concerns of the opponents, the author simply suggests that a little traffic headache is worth it for a cleaner environment, which does not adequately address the issue at hand.
The author's response to potential objections is inadequate because it answers the traffic concern with a flippant rhetorical question rather than meaningfully addressing the issue. By dismissing the concern with a rhetorical question, the author fails to acknowledge the legitimate impact that shut down traffic on Becker Boulevard for several months could have on the community. Instead of providing a thoughtful response that considers possible alternatives or solutions, the author's dismissive tone undermines the credibility of their argument.
The author's response to potential objections is inadequate because it answers the traffic concern with a flippant rhetorical question rather than meaningfully addressing the issue. While the author acknowledges that opponents of the plan complain about the impact on traffic, they dismiss it with a rhetorical question instead of providing a comprehensive explanation or solution.
In order to address this objection effectively, the author could have provided a more detailed response by acknowledging the traffic impact and proposing potential strategies to mitigate it. They could discuss alternative routes or ways to minimize disruptions during the construction phase. This would show a greater understanding of the concerns raised by the opponents and provide a more thoughtful response.
Additionally, the author could have emphasized the environmental benefits of the plan more effectively. While they briefly mention the detrimental effects of sewer overflow on water quality and wildlife, they could have provided more specific information or data to support their claim. This would strengthen the argument for implementing the plan and help to persuade the opponents.
Lastly, the notion that the author's response betrays a bias against the community's use of automobiles is not supported by the given information. The author's focus is primarily on the environmental benefits of the plan and how it will address the issue of sewer overflow, rather than criticizing the community's use of automobiles. Therefore, this option is not a valid criticism of the author's response.