medium · GMAT Verbal
Shipping lines are reconsidering ammonia as a fuel because, unlike conventional marine fuel, burning it emits no carbon dioxide. An industry analyst argues that switching the global fleet to ammonia would therefore substantially reduce shipping's contribution to global warming.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the analyst's argument?
- Ammonia is highly toxic, so adopting it as a marine fuel would require new onboard safety protocols and specialized training for crews who handle it.
- Most of the world's ammonia is currently manufactured using fossil fuels, releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide before the fuel ever reaches a ship.
- Conventional marine fuel is currently cheaper per unit of energy than ammonia, so switching the fleet to ammonia would raise operating costs for shippers.
- Several major shipping lines have already announced plans to begin testing ammonia-powered engines on a few of their vessels at some point in the next two years.
- Ammonia is considerably more difficult to ignite than conventional marine fuel, so ammonia engines may need extra ignition systems to keep combustion stable while at sea.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More GMAT Verbal practice
- A gardener says: 'All roses in this garden require daily wat… — What is the role of the st
- What is the conclusion?
- Which of the following is the conclusion?
- What logical role do the first two statements play?
- What is the conclusion?
- What logical role does the first sentence play in the researcher's argument?
- Which statement is the conclusion?
- Which of the following, if true, most undermines the agency's claim?