- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu May 25, 2017 1:26 pm
#35367
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)
The author warns against building nuclear power plants, because even if the chances of a meltdown
were extremely small, its consequences would be catastrophic. This question stem asks us to identify
an answer choice with a similar pattern of reasoning. Given the nature of this argument, the Test of
Abstraction is likely to provide the most effective approach. The abstraction should be broad and
applicable to new situations that likely will not be about nuclear power plants.
A good prephrase would basically be: certain actions are so dangerous that they are not worth the
risk, even if the risk is extremely slim. In other words, the potential harm that would result in case of
an accident is too extreme to justify the risk.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice may seem attractive, because it considers the remoteness of
the risk of a fatal mishap during mountain climbing. However, instead of weighing that risk against
the potentially catastrophic consequences of a mishap, this argument suggests that the risk is not as
small as it appears at first. The conclusion is a declarative statement of risk, not a warning against
the pursuit of a particular action. Clearly, this line of reasoning is markedly different from the one
contained in the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice does not parallel the principle underlying the stimulus.
Rather than cautioning against a particular type of risky behavior, this argument advocates a course
of action that yields negligible short-term benefits, but is advantageous in the long run.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice may seem attractive because it warns against a particular
type of behavior (skydiving) despite the relatively low risk of a fatal mishap. However, the argument
warns against skydiving not because the consequences of a fatal mishap are catastrophic, but because
the rewards are too small. This line of reasoning deviates from the argument contained in the
stimulus, as the potential rewards of building nuclear power plants are never considered.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The argument warns against engaging in
a potentially risky behavior (bungee jumping) despite the low risk of injury, just like the stimulus
cautioned against building nuclear power plants despite the small chances of a meltdown. The
rationale in both arguments is the same: the harm that would result in case of an accident is too
extreme to justify the risk.
Answer choice (E): As with answer choice (C), this answer choice may seem attractive because it
warns against riding in a car without a seat belt despite the relatively small risk of collision. The
rationale behind the warning, however, is markedly different from that in the stimulus. Instead of
considering the catastrophic consequences of an accident in which passengers ride without a seat
belt, the author observes that the effort it takes to put one on is minimal. This line of reasoning has
no match in the argument contained in the stimulus.
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)
The author warns against building nuclear power plants, because even if the chances of a meltdown
were extremely small, its consequences would be catastrophic. This question stem asks us to identify
an answer choice with a similar pattern of reasoning. Given the nature of this argument, the Test of
Abstraction is likely to provide the most effective approach. The abstraction should be broad and
applicable to new situations that likely will not be about nuclear power plants.
A good prephrase would basically be: certain actions are so dangerous that they are not worth the
risk, even if the risk is extremely slim. In other words, the potential harm that would result in case of
an accident is too extreme to justify the risk.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice may seem attractive, because it considers the remoteness of
the risk of a fatal mishap during mountain climbing. However, instead of weighing that risk against
the potentially catastrophic consequences of a mishap, this argument suggests that the risk is not as
small as it appears at first. The conclusion is a declarative statement of risk, not a warning against
the pursuit of a particular action. Clearly, this line of reasoning is markedly different from the one
contained in the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice does not parallel the principle underlying the stimulus.
Rather than cautioning against a particular type of risky behavior, this argument advocates a course
of action that yields negligible short-term benefits, but is advantageous in the long run.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice may seem attractive because it warns against a particular
type of behavior (skydiving) despite the relatively low risk of a fatal mishap. However, the argument
warns against skydiving not because the consequences of a fatal mishap are catastrophic, but because
the rewards are too small. This line of reasoning deviates from the argument contained in the
stimulus, as the potential rewards of building nuclear power plants are never considered.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The argument warns against engaging in
a potentially risky behavior (bungee jumping) despite the low risk of injury, just like the stimulus
cautioned against building nuclear power plants despite the small chances of a meltdown. The
rationale in both arguments is the same: the harm that would result in case of an accident is too
extreme to justify the risk.
Answer choice (E): As with answer choice (C), this answer choice may seem attractive because it
warns against riding in a car without a seat belt despite the relatively small risk of collision. The
rationale behind the warning, however, is markedly different from that in the stimulus. Instead of
considering the catastrophic consequences of an accident in which passengers ride without a seat
belt, the author observes that the effort it takes to put one on is minimal. This line of reasoning has
no match in the argument contained in the stimulus.