Read the following letter from a student to the school newspaper. Then, answer the question(s).
Dear Fellow Students:
(1) I am an eighth-grade representative on the student council. At the beginning of this month, the council debated an intriguing proposal: a solar energy program for the school. The next week, the school newspaper reported that during the meeting I had spoken out against solar energy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
(2) I think the solar power proposal is ingenious. The school would add solar panels to its roof in partnership with a nonprofit foundation. The foundation would help pay for the installation, answering possible objections based on cost.
(3) The panels would reduce the school’s electric bills—and its carbon footprint. Some of the electricity we use in this city comes from generators that burn coal or petroleum fuel. The sponsors of the proposal projected that the panels could reduce the school’s use of fossil-fuel generated electricity by up to 30%. The nonprofit foundation would even contribute to the school’s STEM programs. We wouldn’t just be adding solar panels; we would be adding to students’ knowledge.
(4) With all these benefits—lower costs, environmental responsibility, and educational value— why would anyone speak out against this proposal?
(5) Well, no one did, exactly. Instead, I raised my hand in the meeting to point out a few streaks of gray in this otherwise rosy picture.
(6) First, solar panels themselves can add to pollution. Turning quartz, which contains naturally occurring silicon, into the metallurgical-grade silicon used in solar panels means refining the quartz at high temperatures. Reaching those high temperatures means—you guessed it— burning fossil fuels. In addition, the manufacture of current solar panels involves highly toxic materials that must be carefully recycled.
(7) There is a possible answer, though, to these problems: a new material called perovskite. By using perovskite in place of silicon, manufacturers can avoid some of the environmental costs and risks of silicon-based solar cells.
(8) The technology is still developing, and for now, silicon-based solar panels are the only realistic option. However, we should do a little research before committing to silicon. If long-lasting perovskite panels are predicted to be available soon, we might wait. If we do go with silicon-based panels now, then we should make a firm plan to replace them with a “greener” solution when they wear out. Once these concerns are addressed, the proposed solar panel program is a guaranteed winner. As I hope I have made clear, I support the program—with a few vital tweaks.
Sincerely,
Kira Wilson
Two-Part Question
Part A
Multiple Choice Question
The following question has two parts. Answer Part A first, and then Part B.
Part A What is the author’s primary purpose for writing this letter?
A.
to persuade the student council to approve a solar energy program for the school
B.
to explain her true position on the proposed solar energy program for the school
C.
to inform students about new technology being developed for solar panels
D.
to explain why putting solar panels on the school roof is not a good idea
Part B
Multiple Choice Question
Which sentence from the letter best supports the answer to Part A?
A.
The panels would reduce the school’s electric bills—and its carbon footprint. (paragraph 3)
B.
First, solar panels themselves can add to pollution. (paragraph 6)
C.
By using perovskite in place of silicon, manufacturers can avoid some of the environmental costs and risks of silicon-based solar cells. (paragraph 7)
D.
As I hope I have made clear, I support the program—with a few vital tweaks. (paragraph 8)
1 answer
Part A
The author’s primary purpose for writing this letter is:
B. to explain her true position on the proposed solar energy program for the school.
Part B
The sentence from the letter that best supports the answer to Part A is:
D. As I hope I have made clear, I support the program—with a few vital tweaks. (paragraph 8)
1 answer
1 answer
1 answer
1 answer