A Elag for Review
Highlight (2)
Scientists today are studying tidal power as an alternative energy source for generating electricity.
Some scientists conclude that tidal power is a good alternative source of energy because it uses a natural process, does not rely on fossil fuels, and does not
release greenhouse gases. These scientists recommend building tidal power plants around the United States in locations with high tidal power potential.
Other scientists conclude that tidal power is not a good alternative energy source because tidal power plants can negatively impact the surrounding ecosystem by
killing marine animals, restricting fish migration, reducing the natural flow of water, and causing silt buildup in waterways. These scientists recommend not building
tidal power plants in U.S. waterways.
Both conclusions are based on valid data and scientific reasoning. How can both conclusions be valid?
A. The two groups of scientists believe different theories about the process of generating electricity.
B. The two groups of scientists are looking at different specific aspects of the same scientific problem.
C.The two groups of scientists collect and analyze data about all types of possible alternative energy sources.
D. The two groups of scientists are on opposite sides of the debate on whether the United States needs to find clean alternative energy sources.
The Correct answer and Explanation is:
The correct answer is OB. The two groups of scientists are looking at different specific aspects of the same scientific problem.
Explanation:
In scientific inquiry, it is common for different groups of researchers to arrive at varying conclusions based on the same overarching topic, particularly when it concerns complex issues like alternative energy sources. In this case, the debate around tidal power as an alternative energy source illustrates how differing perspectives can lead to distinct conclusions.
One group of scientists advocates for tidal power, emphasizing its environmental benefits such as utilizing a natural process, the absence of reliance on fossil fuels, and the lack of greenhouse gas emissions. These scientists focus on the positive implications of adopting tidal energy, which aligns with global efforts to mitigate climate change and reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources. They analyze data that highlights the efficiency of tidal energy in generating electricity and its potential contribution to a sustainable energy future.
On the other hand, the opposing group raises concerns about the ecological impacts of tidal power plants. Their focus is on the potential negative consequences for marine ecosystems, such as harm to marine life, disruption of fish migration patterns, and alteration of natural water flow. This group prioritizes environmental conservation and aims to protect aquatic habitats from human-induced changes.
The differing conclusions arise from the scientists’ focus on specific aspects of tidal power: one group emphasizes its advantages, while the other stresses its potential harms. Each group’s perspective is grounded in valid scientific data, leading to well-reasoned, yet contrasting conclusions. This divergence highlights the complexity of scientific research, where multiple factors must be considered, including environmental impact, energy efficiency, and ecological balance. Ultimately, both perspectives are valid because they reflect the multifaceted nature of scientific inquiry, where the same data can lead to different interpretations based on the values and priorities of the researchers involved.