Passage Summary: Fossil fuel companies say it's too expensive to cut carbon. The author thinks they are lying, pointing out that chemical companies said the same thing about ozone-depleting chemicals years ago but ended up fixing the problem easily and even made money doing it.

Conclusion: The claim by fossil-fuel producers that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is prohibitively expensive is likely false.

Reasoning: The chemical industry previously made similar claims about the cost of replacing CFCs, but they were able to phase them out quickly and profitably once forced to do so.

Analysis: This argument relies on an analogy between the chemical industry of the past and the fossil fuel industry of today. For this analogy to hold weight, the two situations must be genuinely comparable. To strengthen the argument, we need to find a reason why the fossil fuel industry's current resistance is similar to the chemical industry's past behavior. Look for an answer that suggests the fossil fuel industry has a similar track record of overstating costs or that the technological hurdles they face are similar to those overcome in the CFC case.