When a cruise ship is taken away for maintenance, it is often repainted as well, and during the repainting no other maintenance work can be done on the ship. In order to reduce maintenance time, Shipping companies are considering using a new nontoxic plastic film instead of paint. The film takes just as long to apply as paint does, but many other maintenance tasks can be carried out at the same time.
Which of the following, if true, is further evidence that using the film will help the cruise ship companies achieve their goal?
- At the end of its useful life, the film can be removed much more quickly than paint can.
- The film can be applied only by technicians who have received special training.
- The metal exteriors of ships have to be protected from high temperatures and mineral deposits such as salt.
- Even at speeds considerably higher than the normal speed of a passenger cruise ship, the film remains securely attached.
- Unlike paint, the film gives a pearlescent tone to certain colors.
Question type: Strengthen
Difficulty level: Medium
Summary of the argument: Using the film is a better option than painting a cruise ship during its maintenance. To strengthen this we need to remove any potential demerits to the plan.
- This relevantly removes a potential demerit to using the film, making the plan more likely to work.
- This does not mean that it has any merit or demerit compared to painting.
- This could be possibly done by both paint and film – there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
- This, again, does not provide an additional merit to the plan.
- Pearlescent tone is irrelevant to this context.