In the 1970s, the German government imposed restrictions on power plants

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

We start by restating the question framing: In the 1970s, the German government imposed restrictions on power plants. Now we analyze each option to see which aligns with historical policy dynamics and the logic often cited for precautionary action.

Option a: 'Because it knew they were responsible for acid rain.' This asserts a definitive causal link between power plants and acid rain. In many cases, governments faced environmental concerns with imperfect or contested scientific certainty. The statement overclaims proof of responsibility; if authorities did not have robust, consensus-backed proof, this rationale would be exposed as premature or dogmatic. Therefore, this option is not generally consistent with the cautious, evidence-based debate that characterized policy responses to acid rain in that era.

Option b: 'To trial the effectiveness of using the precautionary principle.' This reads as an experimental use of the precautionary principle—testing its effectiveness by imposing restrictions. The precautionary principle often guides preventive action in the face of scientific uncertainty, but describing restrictions as a 'trial' of the principle is historically unusual; policies were typically justified as precautionary measures rather than framed as experimental evaluations. While it captures a flavor of precaution, it may mischaracterize the standard policy narrative of the 1970s.

Option c: 'Despite having no proof they caused acid rain.' This choice emphasizes taking preventive action in the face of absent or inconclusive causal proof. It aligns with precautionary thinking: limiting potential environmental harm even without definitive evidence linking the source to the harm, especially when early Warning signs exist or when delay could worsen outcomes. This rationale is consistent with how many governments approached environmental regulation when scientific certainty lagged behind policy needs.

In evaluating the options, the key distinctions hinge on certainties versus precaution. Option a overstates proof, which weakens its plausibility. Option b describes a procedural framing that doesn’t neatly converge with how policies were typically justified or described in the context of 1970s environmental regulation. Option c reflects a precautionary stance—acting despite lacking proof of causation—to prevent potential harm, which fits historical patterns of environmental governance when dealing with acid rain concerns and coal-dependent power sectors.

ME Mod4 Intake 2A - 14 Apr 2025 - 4 Jul 2025 Activity 8.4A/B - Practice Listening Quiz 3

In the 1970s, the German government imposed restrictions on power plants

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Why do Jo and Cam believe the precautionary principle might prevent innovation?

Why does Cam discuss the movie Erin Brokovitch?

Why does Cam discuss the movie Erin Brokovitch?

The lecturer is careful to point out that the precautionary principle

Why does Cam discuss the movie Erin Brokovitch?

What did Cam understand from this lecture?

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler