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 litle traffic headache compared to a cleaner environment?

Question

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 litle 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.

Answer 1

The author's response is inadequate because it dismisses the legitimate concern about traffic disruptions on Becker Boulevard. Instead of addressing this concern with empathy and a thorough explanation of the benefits of the project, the author simply brushes it off with a rhetorical question. This can be seen as dismissive and alienating to those who are directly affected by the potential traffic disruptions. Furthermore, the author's bias against the community's use of automobiles can undermine the credibility of their argument and may turn some readers against the proposed plan. It would be more effective to address objections in a more balanced and comprehensive manner, acknowledging concerns while also highlighting the importance of the project for the environment and community well-being.