A group of scientists have published a revolution discovery they claim to have invented a car engine that runs on water instead of gasoline a writer publishes an article attacking the scientist and claiming that their invention will never work which of the following if it's true most likely suggest that the writer is based

The answer to this that seems the most likely reason that the writer would be biased is because they have a stake or commitment that would be in danger if cars that run solely on water would hurt it. If there is a answer along those lines that is it, and here is why:

If the writer works for, owns, or has invested in a oil company the writer could be in trouble. If water driven cars suddenly take off and become popular, the writer will lose a whole lot of money as the stock market prices and the value of oil decreases. This would lead to the writer being biased to protect their own interests and investments.

Now on the other hand if you are just asking if the writer is biased, the answer is probably true. The one reason the writer wouldn't be considered biased would be if the writer was a scientist that had tested the actual water power motor

I am afraid much is missing here!