The recent devastating typhoon left the coastal town of Atami in ruins. Homes were destroyed, infrastructure crippled, and most tragically, lives were lost. Amidst the chaos and despair, a critical issue emerged: water contamination. The typhoon had caused severe flooding, mixing sewage and industrial waste with the town's freshwater supply. Many residents, desperate for clean water, were forced to drink from contaminated sources, risking serious illness. The local government, overwhelmed by the scale of the disaster, struggled to provide clean water to everyone in need. They had to make difficult choices, prioritizing distribution based on factors such as proximity to treatment facilities and the vulnerability of certain populations, such as the elderly and infants. This led to accusations of favoritism and sparked intense debates about fairness and ethical resource allocation. A particularly contentious case involved the Atami Chemical Company, whose factory had been partially submerged during the flood, releasing a significant amount of unidentified chemicals into the river. While the company pledged to cooperate fully with the cleanup efforts, questions were raised about their past environmental record and whether their negligence contributed to the severity of the water contamination. The community was divided on whether to prioritize punishing the company or securing clean water for all. The mayor, caught in the crossfire, grappled with the ethical implications of his decisions, balancing the needs of the community with the legal ramifications of taking action against a powerful entity. Meanwhile, international aid organizations began to arrive, offering support and resources. However, this influx of aid also created logistical challenges. Distributing aid efficiently required close coordination with the local government, further complicating the already strained situation. The allocation of international assistance further highlighted the moral dilemmas inherent in disaster relief: how do you ensure fair and equitable distribution when resources are limited and needs are immense?
1. Which of the following best describes the central conflict in the passage?
2. What is the significance of the Atami Chemical Company's role in the narrative?
3. The author's tone in the passage can best be described as:
4. Which of the following is NOT explicitly mentioned as a factor influencing the distribution of clean water?