Passage Summary: Montoya wants companies to switch to a new type of liquid because it's safer and more efficient. Peterson argues against this, saying the new liquids are too expensive to be practical.

Conclusion: Chemical companies should switch from using organic solvents to using ionic liquids.

Reasoning: Ionic liquids are safer for workers, less polluting, and can lead to faster reactions with fewer unwanted by-products.

Analysis: Peterson's objection is purely financial. To effectively counter this, Montoya needs to show that the 'expensive' price tag doesn't tell the whole story. A strong counter-argument would suggest that the benefits Montoya mentioned (safety, efficiency, less waste) actually save the company money in the long run, or that the costs of staying with organic solvents (like cleaning up pollution or healthcare for workers) are even higher. Look for an answer that addresses the 'practicality' or 'cost' issue Peterson raised.