Offshore natural gas extraction operations involve a significant risk of leaks, but transporting natural gas via pipelines currently poses an even higher risk per unit of gas. Therefore, to minimize the risk of leaks without reducing our consumption of natural gas, we should increase investments in offshore extraction and decrease 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 reduce the risk of leaks.

Correct

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

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

Offshore extraction often harms marine ecosystems, while pipelines infrequently cause such harm.

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 increasing offshore extraction is necessary to reduce the risk of leaks from pipeline transportation. However, if pipelines can be upgraded to significantly reduce the risk of leaks, this undermines the argument's…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

NiharikaJan 12, 2025

Thanks for sharingThank you for sharing!!thanks for sharing

SaiApr 29, 2025

got this wrong on my practice

TJan 26, 2025

thank you taking time to upload it!

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.