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

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Bonnie

We know that the government is taking an action inconsistent with their statements on nuclear safety. But we don't know they are misrepresenting their reasons for limiting liability. They could be trying to limit bankruptcy liability. The fact that the action is inconsistent with their statements on safety doesn't make that action a misrepresentation.

A misrepresentation is different than an inconsistency. A misrepresentation would be if you saw an ad for an apartment, and it said it came with a kitchen, but what it really came with was a sink in the middle of a room. It didn't provide what it said it would provide. Here, the government isn't not providing liability limitations where they say they will. It's providing limitations on liability where allegedly they aren't necessary.

Hope that helps!

[qwest24]

Hi everyone-I don't know if this forum is still active, but if it is, could someone please explain to me why Choice C is incorrect? If the government claimed that their actions to protect the nuclear industry from liability were to protect them from bankruptcy, but the government also admitted that for bankruptcy to be a concern, an injury must happen, doesn't that mean the government misrepresented their actions?

[Adam Tyson]

We are still here, qwest24! The answer Rachael provided just before your question was in response to another inquiry about answer C, and I think it's as good an explanation as I could offer. What the government said was inconsistent, but that doesn't mean that the reason they gave for limiting liability was a misrepresentation. Maybe what they said about the plants being safe was the thing they misrepresented, and their concern about safety and the need for limited liability is legitimate? Answer B is one possible explanation for their inconsistent stance, but it's not the only one, and thus answer B doesn't have to be true.