#22 - Editorial: The government claims that the country’s

[rachue]

Hi, I'm having a hard time understanding why C is a better choice than D in question 22.

[Nikki Siclunov]

The conditional reasoning contained in answer choice (D) can be summarized as follows:

"If the government acts to prevent a certain kind of situation from arising, then there is a real danger that such situation will arise."

For the Strengthen answer to be correct, it needs to show that the public's fear is well founded, i.e. that nuclear plants are not safe. Since there is no evidence that the government acted to prevent a dangerous situation from arising, the principle in answer choice (D) does not prove that there is a real danger of a nuclear accident. Therefore, answer choice (D) does not strengthen the editorial's argumentation.

Hope this helps!

[8scn]

Hello

Why is D correct and not B? For B: doesn’t the editorial state that the public’s fear is well founded, and that the gov’t decreased the nuclear industry’s financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents (so the gov’t wouldn’t lose out if there was a nuclear accident)? For D: in the stimulus, the gov’t says that unlimited liability poses a threat only if there are injury claims from a nuclear accident (which makes the claims sustained), but how is this an unsupported claim?

[Nikki Siclunov]

The government claims that nuclear power plants are safe, but the editorial concludes that these claims are unsupported (i.e. that the nuclear plants are dangerous). Here's author's rationale for her conclusion:

Premise: The government limited the nuclear industry's liability in case of an accident.

Premise: Unlimited liability poses a threat only if injury claims are sustainable.

Premise: Injury claims are sustainable only if injury results from a nuclear accident.

Obviously, the government did consider the possibility of a nuclear accident, or else they wouldn't have limited the liability of the nuclear industry in case of an accident. From this, the editorial jumps to the conclusion that the the government's claims about safety are unsupported, implying that nuclear plants are actually dangerous.

The conclusion goes too far: just because there is a hypothetical possibility of an accident prompting the government to limit liability in case of an accident does not automatically mean that nuclear plants are dangerous. We take insurance against a variety of real or remote possibilities, such as car accidents. This does not mean that driving is inherently dangerous.

To strengthen the argument, we need to establish how the government's behavior indicates the presence of a real danger of nuclear accidents. (D) does exactly that: the government does not act to prevent a certain kind of situation of arising (i.e. unlimited liability in case of an accident) unless there is a real danger that such a situation will arise:

Act to prevent situation --> Real danger of that situation

If we add the principle in (D) to the argument, we arrive at a much more cogent line of reasoning: since the government did act to limit the nuclear industry's liability, and such liability poses a threat only if injury claims are sustainable against the industry, then there must be a real danger of a sustainable injury claim. For such claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident. Hence, there is a real danger of a nuclear accident.

As is common for must Principle questions, you need to understand the conditional reasoning underlying the argument, and prephrase what usually is a missing link between two conditions.

[ebertasi]

I am having a problem seeing how the argument progresses. Because I am having trouble following the argument, I couldn't figure out the correct answer to 22. I know that the governments conclusion is contradictory to what it is saying only because the last sentence is says that to have a claim there must be a nuclear accident. And i know that the last sentence is the main conclusion. But that is all I can figure out.

I would really appreciate a break down of this argument.

Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

I'll do my best!

In its simplest form, the argument progresses like this: 1) The gov't says X is true; 2) the government acts as if X is not true; 3) therefore, X is not true.

For 22, the principal in D supports the editorial's argument by reinforcing the idea that the gov't would not act as if the plants might be dangerous unless that was a real possibility. That is, the gov't wouldn't be concerned about liability driving them to bankruptcy for some other reason, such as bowing to political pressure, or because there's some other benefit to be had from limiting their liability like a nice juicy kickback from the utility that owns the plants.

Did that help? I know I oversimplified the argument, but did it make it more clear?

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[ebertasi]

Yes that did help. Thank you!

I still have a hard time wrapping my head around answer choice D for question 22. The second part of the answer choice through me off I think, mostly because of how is was worded.

[Jon Denning]

I'll chime in here and see if I can help clarify D for 22 a bit further. The wording is a bit convoluted, but basically what that sentence is saying is that the government may say certain things (make claims about what will happen), but it's actions are dependent on (and indicative of) what it believes WILL actually occur. So what are the actions here? The government acted to limit the liability of the nuclear industry in case of an accident. The editorial's point is that the government would only be concerned about reducing liability if claims against the industry were based on actual injuries from an accident, which completely contradicts the government;s claims that power plants are totally safe and there is no reason for the public to be afraid. In other words, their ACTIONS indicate that a risk of accident does exist (otherwise why bother trying to protect the industry against claims that require an accident occurring), even though they SAY there is no risk. See the contradiction? And that's what D is pointing out: their actions, not their words, indicates what is real. So it strengthens the argument made by the editorial.

[ebertasi]

Thanks for the clarification! The convoluted wording of answer choices and stimulus really throws me out of sync whenever I see it. I guess that is normal and something I just have to learn to get used to? I usually just skip problems that I can't understand right away.

[Jon Denning]

Well I think with practice you'll find those convoluted answers become more and more manageable, so hopefully by test day there won't be many (any) that stump you. But if you do find yourself just lost on a question, whether in the stimulus or the answers, and feel that it's taking too much time and you're not making progress, then definitely consider moving on and returning to it later.