- AThe incinerator should be replaced at once, twenty-two years being longer than any such plant ought to be worked
- BThe committee should have the two plants weighed against each other on what each would do for the town — what each costs to run, what each sends up the chimney and what each leaves behind — the incinerator's twenty-two years being evidence on none of these
- CThe member who objects should be asked to withdraw his objection before the matter is taken up
- DThe hospital should be required to send its waste out of the town instead of burning it
Step-by-Step Solution
The member has offered the committee an age where a performance was wanted, and the remedy is to get the performance measured. Running cost, emission and residue are the things the town actually cares about, and on all three the twenty-two years are silent. The first option makes the member's own mistake the other way about, treating age as a reason to replace when it is no more a reason to replace than to retain. The third settles a question of substance by managing a member. And sending the waste out of the town answers a question nobody asked, since the choice before the committee is between two plants at the hospital.
Answer: B) The committee should have the two plants weighed against each other on what each would do for the town — what each costs to run, what each sends up the chimney and what each leaves behind — the incinerator's twenty-two years being evidence on none of these