arora007 wrote:Until the Federal government began providing low-cost flood insurance to coastal property owners, construction along beaches was limited by owners' fears that their property would be washed away. Since the insurance was made available, however, beachfront construction has boomed and land erosion has increased at a dangerous rate.

Which of the following, if feasible, offers the best prospects for the Federal government to put a stop to the problem of land erosion along beaches?
A. prohibiting beachfront property owners from embellishing or adding to existing buildings
B. utilizing computer science techniques to obtain detailed information on the extent and rapidity of land erosion along beaches
C. enacting building codes requiring new beachfront structures in flood-threatened areas to be elevated above the high water level of a storm
D. compensating beachfront property owners for moving to a new location off the coast while canceling flood insurance benefits for any new or remaining beachfront construction
E. requiring beachfront property owners receiving flood insurance coverage to adopt construction standards that will protect their buildings from inundation.

A. This wouldn't resolve the issue of continuing construction, which is implied to be the cause of the land erosion.
B. Knowing the extent and rapidity of the erosion wouldn't do anything, by itself, to stop it.
C. This might save the structures, but would have no impact on the land erosion.
D. This is correct; this option would reduce existing residence on beachfront property, and discourage new construction. Since the implied cause of the land erosion is the construction, this would be the best option for stopping the erosion. Note that the question asks for the "best prospects," which means that a comprehensive, extreme solution like this one is the ideal choice.
E. This would, like C, help protect the structures themselves, but would have no discernible impact on the land erosion.