Text 1: Economist Dr. Julia Rivera supports renewable energy subsidies. "Government incentives accelerate the transition to clean energy by making solar and wind competitive with fossil fuels," Rivera argues. "The long-term environmental and health benefits far outweigh the initial costs to taxpayers."
Text 2: Economist Dr. Paul Anders opposes energy subsidies. "Markets should determine winners in the energy sector," Anders contends. "Subsidies distort prices, create dependency, and often benefit wealthy homeowners who can afford solar installations. Direct carbon taxes would be more economically efficient and equitable."
Based on the texts, how would Anders (Text 2) most likely characterize Rivera's approach in Text 1?
As effective but fiscally irresponsible
As well-intentioned but economically misguided
As supported by strong scientific evidence
As the only viable path to clean energy
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Anders doesn't doubt Rivera's intentions (clean energy transition) but argues her method (subsidies) is economically flawed—distorting markets and benefiting the wealthy.
- Evidence: Anders proposes carbon taxes as "more economically efficient and equitable."
- Reasoning: He shares Rivera's goal but disputes her method on economic grounds.
- Conclusion: Anders sees the approach as well-meaning but economically problematic.
Choice A is incorrect because Anders focuses on economic distortions, not fiscal responsibility alone. Choice C is incorrect because Anders challenges the approach, not supports it. Choice D is incorrect because Anders proposes an alternative (carbon taxes).