Read the following paragraphs from the CON author. Globally, nuclear electricity production has been leveling off while wind and solar power are soaring. There are good reasons for this. One is cost. The new nuclear plants now being built in the U.S. are expected to cost $8 billion to $9 billion each, possibly more. It is also very expensive to safely shut down plants, which eventually becomes necessary when they are too old. How do the paragraphs develop the idea that nuclear plants are not worth the cost?

Read these two paragraphs from the PRO article. Wind power and solar power can also produce energy without releasing carbon. However, they are not constant. To work, the sun has to be out, or the wind has to be blowing. Nuclear power plants run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are the only constant source of power that does not emit greenhouse gases. How do these paragraphs use a comparison to support a claim?

Which question BEST captures the main point of disagreement between the PRO and CON authors?

Which are the two MAIN criticisms of nuclear power from the CON author? It is too expensive. It creates too much pollution. It presents major risks. It does not produce energy in a reliable way.