Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only II and III are strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:This question weighs an abrupt policy: immediately stopping coal mining. Strong arguments must engage with feasibility and consequences for energy security and livelihoods, not merely state a truism about finite stocks.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is weak: Finite stock does not imply immediate stop; it argues for managed transition, efficiency, and diversification, not an abrupt ban.II is strong: Without sufficient alternative energy, an immediate stop jeopardizes power supply and essential services.III is strong: Abrupt cessation would harm employment and downstream industries, causing broad economic disruption.Verification / Alternative check:
Just transitions typically phase down coal with timelines, retraining, and replacement capacity — supporting II and III as decisive concerns against an immediate stop.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including I misinterpret scarcity as justification for an instant halt.Common Pitfalls:
Confusing long-run sustainability with short-run feasibility.Final Answer:
Only II and III are strong
Discussion & Comments