Offshore natural gas extraction operations carry a significant risk of leaks, but transporting natural gas via pipelines currently poses an even greater risk per unit of gas. Therefore, to minimize the risk of leaks without reducing our consumption of natural gas, we should invest more in offshore extraction and reduce our reliance on pipeline transportation.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

Pipelines can be upgraded to significantly lower the risk of leaks.

Correct

Leaks from pipelines have typically resulted in more severe environmental damage than those from offshore extraction.

The environmental impact of offshore extraction can be mitigated through effective regulation.

Offshore extraction often harms marine ecosystems, while pipelines do not have such effects.

Transporting natural gas via pipelines is currently cheaper than extracting it offshore.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

The argument suggests that to reduce the risk of leaks, we should invest more in offshore extraction and rely less on pipelines. However, if pipelines can be upgraded to significantly lower the risk of leaks, this would weaken the…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

ShreyaApr 1, 2025

thanks for posting

YHApr 10, 2025

Great explanation

AnjolaJun 16, 2024

thanks!

PavanajJan 24, 2025

Amazing

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.