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 fu release greenhouse gases. These scientists recommend building tidal power plants around the United States in locations with high tidal pow Other scientists conclude that tidal power is not a good alternative energy source because tidal power plants can negatively impact the surre by killing marine animals, restricting fish migration, reducing the natural flow of water, and causing silt buildup in waterways. These scientis 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
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 fu release greenhouse gases. These scientists recommend building tidal power plants around the United States in locations with high tidal pow Other scientists conclude that tidal power is not a good alternative energy source because tidal power plants can negatively impact the surre by killing marine animals, restricting fish migration, reducing the natural flow of water, and causing silt buildup in waterways. These scientis 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
The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
Correct Answer: B. The two groups of scientists are looking at different specific aspects of the same scientific problem.
Explanation
The apparent disagreement between the two groups of scientists studying tidal power stems not from flawed reasoning, but from focusing on different aspects of the same issue. Group A emphasizes the environmental and energy benefits of tidal power, such as its renewable nature and lack of greenhouse gas emissions. They see tidal power as a promising solution to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and combat climate change.
Group B, however, highlights the potential environmental drawbacks of tidal power plants, such as harm to marine ecosystems, disruption of fish migration, and changes in sediment flow. These are significant concerns that could impact local biodiversity and long-term ecosystem health.
Both conclusions are scientifically valid because each group bases their opinions on reliable observations, experiments, and data. They simply prioritize different criteria in their evaluations—Group A focuses on energy efficiency and climate benefits, while Group B concentrates on environmental and ecological impacts.
This difference in focus is common in scientific studies where complex trade-offs exist. It reflects the multidimensional nature of evaluating alternative energy sources, which involves considering economic, environmental, technological, and social factors. Scientists often specialize in particular areas, leading them to weigh evidence differently depending on their expertise and research goals.
Understanding that both conclusions can be valid helps illustrate an important point in scientific discourse: complex issues rarely have simple answers. Effective decision-making requires integrating insights from all perspectives. In the case of tidal power, policymakers need to balance its potential as a clean energy source against the environmental risks, possibly through careful site selection, improved technology, and environmental safeguards.
In conclusion, option B is correct because the two groups are addressing different specific aspects—benefits versus environmental impacts—of the same overall scientific issue: the viability of tidal power as an energy source
.