Is this a real article (written by a journalist to a newspaper) or fake (written by a computer or a troll factory)? Also indicate the veracity of the information by choosing false, partly true or true.Wind energy bird mortality secrets September 17, 2019 – Jim Wiegand When the wind energy industry was in its infancy, I was fresh out of college and studying raptors—eagles, hawks and falcons—near Altamont, California. I didn’t think much about the wind turbines, aside from thinking they were an eyesore. That changed when the data began to emerge about how wind turbines annually kill millions of birds and thousands of raptors—the birds I have spent my life trying to save. Every time I see a wind turbine now, it reminds me that this industry is an affront to nearly everything I stand for. Since 1995 many thousands of eagles have been collected from wind farm freezers by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and then shipped off to Denver’s eagle repository. My estimate is that over 30,000 eagle carcasses have been picked up from wind farms since 1995. Across the world dozens of endangered species are being pushed to extinction from wind turbines. The policy that has helped advance the industry is called the federal Production Tax Credit, and it has poured billions of taxpayer dollars to fuel the rapid building of wind turbines across the country. It’s time to end the PTC. The PTC is set to expire at the end of this year. But wind energy proponents, ignoring the effects of wind turbines on birds, are already pushing Congress to renew this subsidy. Taxpayer advocates have the right to be upset about this. But what concerns me most is that the extension of the PTC will continue to fuel the deaths of millions of birds while pretending to help save the planet.多项选择题
登录即可查看完整答案
我们收录了全球超50000道真实原题与详细解析,现在登录,立即获得答案。

Question

Is this a real article (written by a journalist to a newspaper) or fake (written by a computer or a troll factory)? Also indicate the veracity of the information by choosing false, partly true or true.Wind energy bird mortality secrets September 17, 2019 – Jim Wiegand When the wind energy industry was in its infancy, I was fresh out of college and studying raptors—eagles, hawks and falcons—near Altamont, California. I didn’t think much about the wind turbines, aside from thinking they were an eyesore. That changed when the data began to emerge about how wind turbines annually kill millions of birds and thousands of raptors—the birds I have spent my life trying to save. Every time I see a wind turbine now, it reminds me that this industry is an affront to nearly everything I stand for. Since 1995 many thousands of eagles have been collected from wind farm freezers by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and then shipped off to Denver’s eagle repository. My estimate is that over 30,000 eagle carcasses have been picked up from wind farms since 1995. Across the world dozens of endangered species are being pushed to extinction from wind turbines. The policy that has helped advance the industry is called the federal Production Tax Credit, and it has poured billions of taxpayer dollars to fuel the rapid building of wind turbines across the country. It’s time to end the PTC. The PTC is set to expire at the end of this year. But wind energy proponents, ignoring the effects of wind turbines on birds, are already pushing Congress to renew this subsidy. Taxpayer advocates have the right to be upset about this. But what concerns me most is that the extension of the PTC will continue to fuel the deaths of millions of birds while pretending to help save the planet.多项选择题

登录即可查看完整答案

我们收录了全球超50000道真实原题与详细解析,现在登录,立即获得答案。

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Context and task: You are asked to decide whether the provided piece is a real article by a journalist or fake (and to indicate veracity as false, partly true, or true). The item is a multiple-answers question with two options: b. Fake and d. Partly true. We will evaluate each option in turn, explaining why it might be considered true or false, and why the other option is not accurate, drawing on typical signs of real journalism vs. fabrication and on the content presented.

Option b: Fake
- What would count as evidence for this being fake? If the piece were computer-generated or produced by a troll factory, we would expect signs such as inconsistent attribution, implausible claims, lack of verifiable context (no date, no known author, no organization), or a style that reads like a generic rant rather than a stated journalistic voice. In the provided text, there is a byline-like fragment (Wind energy bird mortality secrets September 17, 2019 – Jim Wiegand) that resembles a dated article header and a named person, which is more characteristic of a real authored piece than a random generator. However, even with a name and date, a text could still be fake if the sourcing and publishing outlet are unknown or dubious, or if the content reflects highly sensational claims without credible context.
- Specific content concerns: The piece asserts extremely large mortality figures (e.g., "millions of birds" killed annually) and cites a concrete statistic (over 30,000 eagle carcasses since 1995) that should be traceable to a source or dataset. If those numbers cannot be corroborated with credible research or official records, they might suggest sensationalism or misrepresentation. But lack of immediate external verification does not by itself prove fraud; it could be a polemical or activist piece presenting estimates from advocacy circles.
- Overall assessment for this option: Calling the piece outright fake would require strong, verifiable indicators of fabrication (no author, no date, no platform, obviously spurious claims). While some numbers look problematic or exaggerated, the presence of a named author and date makes the argument that this is clearly fake less certain. Therefore, selecting b. Fake as the definitive characterization would rest on missing corroboration, which is not definitively established by the text alone.

Option d: Partly true
- Why this could be partly true: The text raises legitimate and widely discussed concerns about wind energy and bird mortality. Real studies have documented bird and raptor fatalities at wind farms, especially at places like Altamont Pass, though detailed figures vary by study and method. The general claim that wind turbines cause bird deaths is supported by scientific literature, so the broad thesis aligns with reality. The assertion that policy incentives (like the Production Tax Credit) influence development is also a common critique discussed in policy debates around renewables. These elements capture real tensions and factual threads in the wind-energy-bird-mortality discourse.
- Where the partly-true assessment applies: The extreme numerical claims (e.g., millions of birds killed annually) are controversial and likely overstated compared with most peer-reviewed assessments, which typically report far lower annual totals in many regions, with higher concentrations in specific sites. The specific figure of "over 30,000 eagle carcasses" since 1995—while possible in some activist tallies—requires verification from credible wildlife agencies or peer-reviewed summaries. Because those figures are contestable and the overall framing is strongly opinionated, the piece can be considered partly true (contains authentic concerns and plausible context but also inflated numbers and persuasive framing).
- Overall assessment for this option: Given the mix of legitimate policy and ecological concerns with contested or exaggerated numerics, labeling the piece as partly true captures the nuanced balance between real issues and overstated evidence. It acknowledges that the article touches on real debates while flagging potential overstatements that require verification.

Synthesis across options
- If one treats the article as a real authored piece with a date and named author, then option b (Fake) rests on strong, verifiable criteria (platform, provenance, verifiable sources) that are not fully established here. The presence of a byline/date argues against a straightforward fake label, though it does not prove authenticity. Option d (Partly true) aligns with recognizing real, debated issues about wind energy and birds while allowing for inflated numbers or selective framing within the text.
- In summary, the reasoning considered the credibility signals (author, date) and the content signals (legitimate issues vs. numerical overstatements). The conclusion you would draw depends on external verification sources (publication outlet, data sources for the mortality figures). The analysis shows why one could reasonably view the piece as partly true, rather than definitively fake, while also acknowledging that outright labeling as true or false cannot be confirmed without additional sources.