Asked by vccccc

Use the passage to answer the question.

Within three years, two-thirds of the world’s population is expected to face water scarcity. Since showering accounts for nearly one-fifth of all residential water use, one way that we all can help to mitigate this problem is by installing low-flow showerheads. While the decreased flow can be something that requires acclimating to, anyone will agree that saving nearly 50 percent off your water bill—as well as saving the planet—is a welcomed change.
A student is developing a counterclaim to this argument. Which counterclaim is the fairest and most effective?

(1 point)
Responses

Anyone who’s ever used a low-flow showerhead can tell you that the water takes forever to heat up, so unless you like cold showers, they don’t use less water.
Anyone who’s ever used a low-flow showerhead can tell you that the water takes forever to heat up, so unless you like cold showers, they don’t use less water.

The majority of building codes require shower valves that can accommodate changes in system pressure, which low-flow showerheads typically cannot meet.
The majority of building codes require shower valves that can accommodate changes in system pressure, which low-flow showerheads typically cannot meet.

Many utility boards offer rebates to customers who are willing to install low-flow showerheads, and the costs of these are passed on to other customers.
Many utility boards offer rebates to customers who are willing to install low-flow showerheads, and the costs of these are passed on to other customers.

The difference between standard and low-flow showerheads is not significant, therefore installing them would not help save water.
The difference between standard and low-flow showerheads is not significant, therefore installing them would not help save water.
Skip to navigation

All Answers 1

Answered by GPT-5 mini AI
Many utility boards offer rebates to customers who are willing to install low-flow showerheads, and the costs of these are passed on to other customers.

This is the fairest and most effective counterclaim because it acknowledges the environmental intent but raises a plausible economic drawback (rebates funded by ratepayers) rather than relying on anecdote or unsupported absolutisms.