. Hurry i have 2 questions left and will give brianlestThere is a public debate between the three candidates for the U. S. Senate. During the debate, the topics of oil and energy are addressed. All three candidates express their views on the issue: Edgar Eisenhower: "We need to cut our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, let's use the natural world around us. Think about the sun, wind, water, the heat of the earth, and the crops in our fields. These will make for affordable energy in the 21st century. We should fund research in those areas. Let us also increase tax credits for private investment in clean, renewable sources of energy." Rebecca Roosevelt: "We need to cut our dependence on foreign oil and develop a national energy strategy. We should provide tax incentives for producing energy in the U. S. Let's increase U. S. supplies of coal, oil, and natural gas. We should promote environmentally responsible exploration and development of oil and gas reserves. That includes federal land like Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge. Let's also advance clean coal technology." Terrance Taft: "Looking at our energy supply is one thing—how we're using it is another. We can drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. We can invest in more efficient technology for our homes and businesses. These things add up and make a big difference. In fact, in several new buildings associated with Taft Inc., we address our energy needs with locally produced renewable energy. That wouldn't be possible if we were using outdated, energy guzzling technology." Often politicians will agree that something is a priority but have very different recommendations on how to best address it. What would be the best example of this from the previous section?