The author concludes that the ShakeAlert system proposed for California would be far too expensive to justify the investment. Is this true or false?

The author concludes that the ShakeAlert system proposed for California would be far too expensive to justify the investment. Is this true or false?

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Not sure
• D. It is mandatory

Answer: (B)

The test is looking at whether the costs of an earthquake early warning system are justified by the benefits of having advance notice. ShakeAlert gives people seconds to minutes of warning before shaking starts, which can save lives, reduce injuries, and lower economic losses by enabling protective actions (like stopping trains, shutting down gas lines, or delaying high-risk operations). When you weigh the potential avoided damage and safer responses against the expense of installing and maintaining the network, the benefits typically outweigh the costs. That’s why the statement that the system would be far too expensive to justify the investment is not correct. The author argues that the investment is worthwhile given the substantial avoided losses and improved safety.

The test is looking at whether the costs of an earthquake early warning system are justified by the benefits of having advance notice. ShakeAlert gives people seconds to minutes of warning before shaking starts, which can save lives, reduce injuries, and lower economic losses by enabling protective actions (like stopping trains, shutting down gas lines, or delaying high-risk operations). When you weigh the potential avoided damage and safer responses against the expense of installing and maintaining the network, the benefits typically outweigh the costs. That’s why the statement that the system would be far too expensive to justify the investment is not correct. The author argues that the investment is worthwhile given the substantial avoided losses and improved safety.