In this set of material the article states that Fuel-cell engines' advantages outweigh the internal-combustion engines and provides three reason of support.

In this set of material the article states that Fuel-cell engines' advantages outweigh the internal-combustion engines and provides three reason of support. However the lecturer finds all the idea dubious and presents some evidence to refute them all. First, the reading passage posits that internal combustion engines need petroleum to work which is finite fuel, and hydrogen is a perfect choice to replace. In contrast, the professor refutes this point by saying that while petroleum is finite, hydrogen is not a good substitute for it. According to the professor the hydrogen can't be used directly and it is not easily access able. Also it demands advanced technologies-get to minus two hundred degree temperature- to produce pure Hydrogen in order to use it. The next explanation uttered in the article is that Hydrogen-based fuel is better to the environment due to making less pollution than petroleum-based one. On the contrary, the lecturer claims that process of achieving pure hydrogen will create more pollution because it needs huge amount of energy. And this energy should be obtained from oil and petroleum, so its better to use them directly. Furthermore, the author of the reading passage asserts that fuel-cell engines preferable more than internal combustion engines in terms of financial concerns. Conversely, the speaker says that all experiments with cheap metals to create the pure hydrogen failed and it can be achieved just with expensive metals. Thus, it will cost more money if they want to use these metals and produce the hydrogen to earn its energy.