Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Lack of funds.
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
This question checks whether the reader can differentiate between issues that actually occurred during construction of the Alaska pipeline and a condition that might seem likely but was not mentioned as a problem in the passage. Many reading comprehension questions are crafted in this way, with one option that is the logical opposite of the information given in the text. Here the emphasis is on careful reading and on understanding the difference between financial feasibility and other practical challenges.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
The best approach is to treat the passage as a source of data. First, identify every stated difficulty or obstacle. Then, examine the options and tick each one that appears word for word or in a clearly equivalent form in the passage. The correct answer will be the remaining choice that is not supported by the text. The key skill is distinguishing between something that sounds plausible in real life and something that is actually described in the reading passage.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Locate the sentence near the end of the passage that begins with the word "Today". This sentence lists the problems faced while constructing and operating the pipeline.
Step 2: The sentence mentions enormous problems of climate, supply shortage, equipment breakdowns, labour disagreements, treacherous terrain, mismanagement, and theft.
Step 3: Compare this list with the options. Option A refers to supply shortages, which are clearly mentioned.
Step 4: Option B refers to treacherous terrain, also directly mentioned in the passage.
Step 5: Option D refers to equipment breakdowns, again explicitly listed.
Step 6: Option C mentions lack of funds. The passage says that no single business could raise the money, but then explains that 8 major oil companies formed a consortium and successfully funded the project. So, lack of funds is not described as an ongoing problem during construction.
Step 7: Therefore, the option that was not a problem is lack of funds, and Option C must be chosen.
Verification / Alternative check:
A quick check is to think about whether the project was completed. The passage states that the pipeline has been completed and is operating. If there had been a permanent lack of funds, the project could not have been finished. Also, the text explains in some detail how the financial issue was solved through the consortium, which means funding became a solution rather than a continuing problem. Meanwhile, natural conditions like climate and terrain cannot be solved in the same way and remain as real obstacles. This cross check confirms that funds were arranged successfully and that lack of funds is not listed among the problems.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A: Supply shortages are clearly mentioned in the list of problems and therefore cannot be the correct answer.
Option B: Treacherous terrain is another exact phrase from the passage describing the difficulty of the landscape.
Option D: Equipment breakdowns are also mentioned as one of the serious issues that had to be handled during the project.
Common Pitfalls:
Many students see the huge cost of $8 billion and quickly assume that lack of funds must have been a major problem. In real life, financial shortages are common in big projects, so the mind fills in that gap even when the passage says something different. Another mistake is skimming the last sentence and only remembering the beginning where the cost is mentioned, ignoring the list of specific problems that follows. To avoid such errors, students should always examine each option against explicit sentences in the passage, instead of relying on outside assumptions about what usually happens in large construction projects.
Final Answer:
The factor that was not a problem during construction of the Alaska pipeline is lack of funds, because the money was successfully raised by a consortium of 8 major oil companies.
Discussion & Comments