I read a sentence in "The Hindu" which was:

Given the prevailing economics and diesel's reputation as a dirty fuel that adds to pollution from cars, buses and freight vehicles, auto companies see a weak business case to upgrade them. (source)

Now, the former part of the sentence is talking about a downside of a commodity, so I think there should be a strong case to upgrade it because upgrading generally means to improve the quality of sth but in the case it seems opposite. Am I right?

  • 1
    The distinction in the article is between upgrading diesel cars or stopping production of diesel cars, not between upgrading them or leaving them as they are. The argument says that the negative attributes of diesel mean that it would be a better business decision to stop producing diesel cars rather than trying to make small upgrades or tweaks to improve their efficiency/etc. – Katy Apr 29 at 15:02
  • There isn't enough context to determine if it should be weak or strong. Although I see nothing wrong with the use of weak. In the interpretation where it makes sense, it's saying that because diesel fuel causes pollution, there can only be a weak business case to continue using it, and especially to continue spending money on upgrades for vehicles that use the polluting fuel. – Jason Bassford Apr 30 at 3:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.