Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Over the course of the twentieth century, humans built, on average, one large dam a day, hulking structures of steel and concrete designed to control flooding, facilitate irrigation, and generate electricity. Dams were also lucrative contracts, large-scale employers, and the physical instantiation of a messianic drive to conquer territories and control nature. Some of the results of that drive were charismatic mega-infrastructure—the Hoover on the Colorado River or the Aswan on the Nile—but most of the tens of thousands of dams that dot the Earth’s landscape have drawn little attention. These are the smaller, though not inconsequential, barriers that today impede the flow of water on nearly two-thirds of the world’s large waterways. Chances are, what your map calls a “lake” is actually a reservoir, and that thin blue line that emerges from it once flowed very differently.

Damming a river is always a partisan act. Even when explicit infrastructure goals—irrigation, flood control, electrification—were met, other consequences were significant and often deleterious. Across the world, river control displaced millions of people, threatening livelihoods, foodways, and cultures. In the western United States, dams were often an instrument of colonialism, used to dispossess Indigenous people and subsidize settler agriculture. And as dams slowed the flow of water, inhibited the movement of nutrients, and increased the amount of toxic algae and other parasites, they snuffed out entire river ecologies. Declining fish populations are the most evident effect, but dams also threaten a host of other animals—from birds and reptiles to fungi and plants—with extinction. Every major dam, then, is also a sacrifice zone, a place where lives, livelihoods, and ways of life are eliminated so that new sorts of landscapes can support water-intensive agriculture and cities that sprout downstream of new reservoirs.

Such sacrifices have been justified as offerings at the temples of modernity. Justified by—and for—whom, though? Over the course of the twentieth century, rarely were the costs and benefits weighed thoughtfully and decided democratically. As Kader Asmal, chair of the landmark 2000 World Commission on Dams, concluded, “There have been precious few, if any, comprehensive, independent analyses as to why dams came about, how dams perform over time, and whether we are getting a fair return from our $2 trillion investment.” A quarter-century later, Asmal’s words ring ever truer. A litany of dams built in the mid-twentieth century are approaching the end of their expected lives, with worrying prospects for their durability. Droughts, magnified and multiplied by the effects of climate change, have forced more and more to run below capacity. If ever there were a time to rethink the mania for dams, it would be now.

There is some evidence that a combination of opposition, alternative energy sources, and a lack of viable projects has slowed the construction of major dams. But a wave of recent and ongoing construction, from India and China to Ethiopia and Canada, continues to tilt the global balance firmly in favor of water impoundment.

What does the author wish to communicate by referring to the Hoover and Aswan dams in the first paragraph?

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 1

The correct answer is option 1. The author introduces the Hoover and Aswan dams as prominent examples of "charismatic mega-infrastructure" but then pivots with "but most of the tens of thousands of dams that dot the Earth's landscape have drawn little attention." The rhetorical purpose of naming these famous dams is to set up a contrast: the drive to conquer territories and control nature is visible not only in celebrated mega-structures but also in the countless smaller, overlooked barriers that impede nearly two-thirds of the world's large waterways. Option 1 captures this contrast precisely.

Option 2 is wrong (keyword trap). The passage uses the word "charismatic" to describe the infrastructure itself, not the people who designed or built it. The author never discusses the personal qualities of any dam builders.

Option 3 is wrong (out of scope). The "thin blue line" reference appears later in the paragraph and describes rivers flowing from reservoirs on maps. The passage never suggests that the Colorado or the Nile specifically are seen as thin blue lines, nor is that the purpose of mentioning the Hoover and Aswan dams.

Option 4 is wrong (keyword trap). The passage mentions "large-scale employers" and "messianic drive" as separate characteristics of dam-building culture, but it never claims that employers themselves became messianic figures. This option wrongly fuses two distinct ideas from the sentence into a causal relationship the author does not assert.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question