Solution
The passage argues that renewable energy needs careful study because it can cause social and environmental harm through mining, waste disposal, and corporate concentration.
From passage: "Both the direct and indirect impacts of renewable energy must be examined to ensure that a climate-smart future does not intensify social and environmental harm."
The thought process: Passage says renewables need scrutiny -> looks at mining impacts -> discusses waste problems -> talks about corporate concentration -> So any statement supporting these concerns would align with the passage.
🟢 Option 1 -> supports passage -> directly matches the waste disposal argument. Passage clearly states toxic waste disposal perpetuates social injustice.
🟢 Option 2 -> supports passage -> perfectly aligns with mining concerns. Passage specifically mentions marginalized communities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America suffering from mineral extraction.
🟢 Option 3 -> supports passage -> backs up the corporate concentration argument. Passage uses agricultural finance as an example of how concentration facilitates profit generation.
🔴 Option 4 -> incomplete fragment -> just says "The possible negative impacts of renewable energy" without making any actual statement. This isn't a complete sentence that could support or contradict anything. It's just a topic phrase, not an argument.
The key confusion here: Students might think option 4 supports the passage because it mentions negative impacts. But it's not actually making a statement - it's just naming a topic. A supporting statement would need to actually say something about those impacts, like "Renewable energy has negative impacts that should be studied" or similar.