Passage Summary: James argues that nuclear power is eco-friendly because we can now get car-part materials from its waste. Marta counters that this method is still experimental and hasn't actually changed how we get those materials yet.

Conclusion: Nuclear power is currently contributing to a cleaner environment.

Reasoning: A new technique allows for the extraction of rhodium, a necessary component for pollution-reducing catalytic converters, from nuclear waste.

Analysis: Marta's response is a classic 'relevance' or 'applicability' counter-argument. She doesn't deny that the technology exists or that it works; instead, she challenges the leap James makes from a scientific possibility to a current environmental reality. To identify her method, look for an answer choice that describes her pointing out that James's evidence is not yet being put into practice. She is essentially saying his conclusion is premature because the 'contribution' hasn't actually started.