- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:02 am
#26420
Complete Question Explanation
Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (B)
The stimulus in this Must Be True question begins by providing some background about the causes of serious accidents in nuclear power plants. We are told that to date serious accidents have not been caused by flaws related to the advanced technology in the plants, but rather these accidents have been the result of human errors, such as a worker starting a fire and a plumbing incident. The final sentence, however, is less straightforward. It states that “such everyday events” (meaning human errors like the ones mentioned) “cannot be thought unlikely” to continue occurring. The double-negative language of “cannot” and “unlikely” essentially results in a positive statement: human errors are likely to occur over the long run. This unusual phrasing is not arbitrarily chosen by the test makers; they frequently use intentionally confusing language in an attempt to confound unsuspecting test takers, so it is important to read closely and pay particular attention to any strange expressions you encounter on the LSAT.
Another important point to consider in this stimulus is the idea of scope. Scope on the LSAT is defined as the strength of the language/verbiage used by an author, where strong, absolute language (“always,” “never,” “must,” “cannot,” etc.) implies a narrow scope (the author severely limits the information presented due to the inherent restrictions of absolute statements), while language dealing merely with possibility or probability (“can,” “could,” “usually,” etc.) is considered to be broad scope (the information is much less restricted because these words allow for a greater range of possible events or outcomes). For this particular question, the language of the stimulus can be thought of as fairly broad scope: the author simply states that human errors are likely to occur in the future, a statement of probability as opposed to definitive certainty.
The significance of scope is particularly notable as you formulate a prephrase and begin to analyze the answer choices. For a Must Be True question such as this, an answer choice cannot exceed the certainty with which the author presents information in the stimulus. Since this stimulus is broad in scope and deals only with what is probable in the future, any answer choice that uses definitive language or makes an absolute statement about the future is too narrow in scope and can be dismissed. And of course, as is the case with any Must Be True question, any answer choice that introduces new information (information not addressed in the stimulus) is also incorrect.
A reasonable prephrase for this question takes into consideration the implications of the information given in the last sentence. Since we are essentially told that human errors are likely to continue occurring in the future, and since human errors have been the primary initial cause of serious accidents in the past at nuclear power plants, it seems logical to conclude that another serious accident is also likely to occur.
Answer choice (A): Evaluating this answer choice critically, we encounter a statement of fact at the very outset that seems questionable: nuclear power has become a part of everyday life. Is this something that can be known with certainty from the information in the stimulus? It seems to be new, and thus unfounded, information. Further, as we continue reading we are told that serious accidents can be expected to occur at an “ever increasing” rate. The idea of serious accidents increasing in frequency is in no way supported by the stimulus and thus answer choice (A) can be eliminated.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. First, it begins with a hypothetical statement about if nuclear power plants continue in operation. Note how broad in scope, and thus desirable following a broad stimulus, that consideration is: this answer does not state that power plants will continue to operate, but simply ponders the notion of what would happen if they continue to be used. And, as our prephrase suggested the correct answer would, this answer concludes by suggesting that a serious accident is “not improbable.” Just as we encountered in the final sentence of the stimulus, the phrase “not improbable” is a double-negative meaning, simply, “probable.” Hence answer choice (B) is essentially saying that if nuclear power plants continue in operation, and thus more human errors are likely (from the stimulus), then a serious accident is also likely.
While you will not always encounter such a clear repetition of deliberately unusual language, the underlying meaning of the answer choice is extremely predictable based on our understanding of scope and our powerful prephrase.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice discusses how one cannot reduce the likelihood of human errors at power plant operating consoles by adjusting the design of “dials, switches, and displays.” Since at no point in the stimulus are we ever given information concerning ways in which one could reduce the likelihood of human error (particularly with respect to the design of certain console elements), this answer choice cannot be correct.
Answer choice (D): The stimulus does not contain any information regarding the way in which nuclear power plants are designed or constructed, so this answer choice cannot be correct. Be careful not to confuse what seems like a logical and valid “truth” in the real world with “truth” on the LSAT. That is, while we would hope that nuclear power plants are indeed designed to compensate for any possible failures in the building materials, we cannot accept this as true based solely on the information in this stimulus.
Answer choice (E): Obviously this answer choice is based on the fact that to date no serious accidents have been caused by the advanced technology portion of nuclear power plants, however that is not evidence that no serious accident will ever be caused by advanced technology. In fact, it would always be impossible to make such a definitive prediction about future events, regardless of what has occurred in the past.
Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (B)
The stimulus in this Must Be True question begins by providing some background about the causes of serious accidents in nuclear power plants. We are told that to date serious accidents have not been caused by flaws related to the advanced technology in the plants, but rather these accidents have been the result of human errors, such as a worker starting a fire and a plumbing incident. The final sentence, however, is less straightforward. It states that “such everyday events” (meaning human errors like the ones mentioned) “cannot be thought unlikely” to continue occurring. The double-negative language of “cannot” and “unlikely” essentially results in a positive statement: human errors are likely to occur over the long run. This unusual phrasing is not arbitrarily chosen by the test makers; they frequently use intentionally confusing language in an attempt to confound unsuspecting test takers, so it is important to read closely and pay particular attention to any strange expressions you encounter on the LSAT.
Another important point to consider in this stimulus is the idea of scope. Scope on the LSAT is defined as the strength of the language/verbiage used by an author, where strong, absolute language (“always,” “never,” “must,” “cannot,” etc.) implies a narrow scope (the author severely limits the information presented due to the inherent restrictions of absolute statements), while language dealing merely with possibility or probability (“can,” “could,” “usually,” etc.) is considered to be broad scope (the information is much less restricted because these words allow for a greater range of possible events or outcomes). For this particular question, the language of the stimulus can be thought of as fairly broad scope: the author simply states that human errors are likely to occur in the future, a statement of probability as opposed to definitive certainty.
The significance of scope is particularly notable as you formulate a prephrase and begin to analyze the answer choices. For a Must Be True question such as this, an answer choice cannot exceed the certainty with which the author presents information in the stimulus. Since this stimulus is broad in scope and deals only with what is probable in the future, any answer choice that uses definitive language or makes an absolute statement about the future is too narrow in scope and can be dismissed. And of course, as is the case with any Must Be True question, any answer choice that introduces new information (information not addressed in the stimulus) is also incorrect.
A reasonable prephrase for this question takes into consideration the implications of the information given in the last sentence. Since we are essentially told that human errors are likely to continue occurring in the future, and since human errors have been the primary initial cause of serious accidents in the past at nuclear power plants, it seems logical to conclude that another serious accident is also likely to occur.
Answer choice (A): Evaluating this answer choice critically, we encounter a statement of fact at the very outset that seems questionable: nuclear power has become a part of everyday life. Is this something that can be known with certainty from the information in the stimulus? It seems to be new, and thus unfounded, information. Further, as we continue reading we are told that serious accidents can be expected to occur at an “ever increasing” rate. The idea of serious accidents increasing in frequency is in no way supported by the stimulus and thus answer choice (A) can be eliminated.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. First, it begins with a hypothetical statement about if nuclear power plants continue in operation. Note how broad in scope, and thus desirable following a broad stimulus, that consideration is: this answer does not state that power plants will continue to operate, but simply ponders the notion of what would happen if they continue to be used. And, as our prephrase suggested the correct answer would, this answer concludes by suggesting that a serious accident is “not improbable.” Just as we encountered in the final sentence of the stimulus, the phrase “not improbable” is a double-negative meaning, simply, “probable.” Hence answer choice (B) is essentially saying that if nuclear power plants continue in operation, and thus more human errors are likely (from the stimulus), then a serious accident is also likely.
While you will not always encounter such a clear repetition of deliberately unusual language, the underlying meaning of the answer choice is extremely predictable based on our understanding of scope and our powerful prephrase.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice discusses how one cannot reduce the likelihood of human errors at power plant operating consoles by adjusting the design of “dials, switches, and displays.” Since at no point in the stimulus are we ever given information concerning ways in which one could reduce the likelihood of human error (particularly with respect to the design of certain console elements), this answer choice cannot be correct.
Answer choice (D): The stimulus does not contain any information regarding the way in which nuclear power plants are designed or constructed, so this answer choice cannot be correct. Be careful not to confuse what seems like a logical and valid “truth” in the real world with “truth” on the LSAT. That is, while we would hope that nuclear power plants are indeed designed to compensate for any possible failures in the building materials, we cannot accept this as true based solely on the information in this stimulus.
Answer choice (E): Obviously this answer choice is based on the fact that to date no serious accidents have been caused by the advanced technology portion of nuclear power plants, however that is not evidence that no serious accident will ever be caused by advanced technology. In fact, it would always be impossible to make such a definitive prediction about future events, regardless of what has occurred in the past.
