Another author has written an article about the solar installation program in New York Schools, but had a different interpretation of the facts than the original author.
Read the two statements from the different articles below:
Original article: At Thomas Edison High School in Queens, a new solar installation generates electricity. In fact, it produces enough electricity to meet 65 percent of the school's energy consumption.
Second article: The solar installation project at Thomas Edison High School in Queens isn't as effective as it could be. In fact, 35 percent of the school's energy consumption isn't supported by the solar panels at all.
What is the key difference in how the two texts interpret the facts differently?
(1 point)
Responses
The original article has a less favorable explanation of how solar energy is benefitting the school system
The original article has a less favorable explanation of how solar energy is benefitting the school system
The original article uses more emotional language to explain the impact of solar energy.
The original article uses more emotional language to explain the impact of solar energy.
The second article is more objective.
The second article is more objective.
The second article has a less favorable explanation of how solar energy is benefitting the school system