Each statement claims something about alternating current (AC). Let's check each one against how AC actually behaves in generation, distribution, and safety.
- Production of AC is economical: AC generators (alternators) have a comparatively simple rotating design and don't need the commutators and brushes that DC generators require, which keeps their construction and maintenance cost lower. This statement holds up.
- AC can be easily and efficiently converted from one voltage to another: Because AC's magnitude varies with time, it can pass through a transformer, which works purely by electromagnetic induction between coils, to step voltage up or down with very little energy loss. DC cannot do this directly. This statement holds up.
- AC can be transmitted economically over long distances: Since AC voltage can be stepped up to very high levels before transmission, the current for a given power is much smaller, and since resistive power loss scales as \( I^2R \), a smaller current means far less power wasted as heat over long transmission lines. This statement holds up.
- AC is less dangerous: Danger from electric shock depends mainly on the current's magnitude and the path it takes through the body, not simply on whether the supply is AC or DC. In fact, AC in the household frequency range is generally considered more hazardous than DC at a comparable voltage, because it causes sustained muscle contraction and can disrupt the heart's own rhythm. This statement does not hold up.
Three of the four statements describe genuine, well-established practical benefits of AC, generation cost, easy voltage transformation, and efficient long-distance transmission. The claim that AC is inherently "less dangerous," however, does not reflect how AC and DC actually compare in terms of shock hazard.
Therefore, the correct answer is AC is less dangerous.