| Q15: 
 Brochure:  Help conserve our city’s water supply.  By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use.  A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money. 
 
 
 
 
 Criticism:  For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner’s yearly water bills. 
 
 
 
 Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism? 
 
 
 
 
 Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
 A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
 A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
 It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping. 
 Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.
 
 
 I dont understand what the question means. 
 the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?   
 So we are asked to choose an answer to rebut the criticism or to rebut the brochure.  
 |