#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.

[saiffshaikhh@gmail.com]

Why is the answer not C? I knocked out E which was a tempting answer but ultimately, we do not know if it's the ONLY reason. C seems logical enough,

[Amber Thomas]

Hi saiffshaikhh@gmail.com!

Let's break down our stimulus:

Premise 1: The government claims nuclear power plants are completely safe, and the public's fear of nuclear accidents are unfounded.
Premise 2: The government recently limited the nuclear industry's financial liability in the event of nuclear accident.
Premise 3: The government claims it did this to protect the nuclear industry from bankruptcy.
Premise 4: However, the government also says that unlimited liability only threatens industries if actual injury claims can be made against said industry.
Premise 5: The government also admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident.
Conclusion: Therefore, the public's fear about nuclear accidents are well founded.

On one hand, the government states that fears about nuclear accidents are unfounded. On the other hand, they take a course of action that demonstrates that these fears may not be unfounded (they work to protect the nuclear industry from injury claims which would only be necessary if there was a realistic chance that injury could result, and the only way injury could result would be from a nuclear accident.).

This leads us to Answer Choice B: "The government’s position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent."

The government's actions say one thing, while they claim another. This shows an inconsistent position.

Answer Choice C states: "The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry’s liability."

We don't have enough context to definitively say this must be true. Ultimately, we don't know why the government decided to limit the nuclear industry's liability-- it could be to protect them from bankruptcy, like they said, or it could be any other variety of reasons as well. The context does not allow us to draw a conclusion one way or the other-- the only thing we can definitively say is that their position is inconsistent based on a discrepancy between their actions and words.

I hope this helps!