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

[rachue]

Hi, I'm having a hard time understanding why A is considered incorrect. I understand why B is correct, though.

The government claims that the public is wrong about the nuclear plants' safety, yet in a later premise they also indirectly contradict themselves on that view by protecting the nuclear industry's finances. Therefore, wouldn't their position in the first lines, that the plants are "entirely safe" and "the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless," be not only inconsistent but also false?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Since we have no actual evidence to support the conclusion that nuclear plants are not safe, answer choice (A) is incorrect. Examine the government's position more closely:

If unlimited liability poses a threat, then injury claims must be sustained against the industry.

If injury claims are sustained against the industry, the injury must result from a nuclear accident.

These claims are merely conditional - they do not suggest that nuclear plants actually pose any danger. The government's desire to protect the industry's finances may be disturbing, but it does not constitute irrefutable proof that nuclear plants are dangerous. Consequently, we cannot infer that the government's claim is false.

Hope this helps!

[ebertasi]

I understand why for 21 B is the correct answer, but I am having a problem seeing how the argument progresses.

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.

A is a tempting answer for 21, but it's too extreme. It could very well be that the plants are totally safe, even though the gov't acts as if they are not. B is the better answer because whether the plants are safe or not, the gov't doesn't act in a way that is consistent with their statements.

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[ebertasi]

Yes that did help. Thank you!

[voodoochild]

Experts,
I really liked this argument because I couldn't attack it. Here's my 'boiled-down' version of this argument.

Govt says nuclear plants are safe
+
Govt has insured nuclear plants ============> Nuclear plants are not entirely safe
+
If require insurace, then injury
must result from
nuclear accident (*** Note)


(*** Note) I have summarized "The government also contends that its recent action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be sustained against the industry; and the government admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from nuclear accident." in one conditional statement above.


My question is : How can I weaken this argument? I couldn't find holes at all.


Thanks
Voodoo Child

[Nikki Siclunov]

This is actually a fairly weak argument. It boils down to this: the government is taking proactive steps to limit liability in case of an accident. So, the public's fear of such an accident is well justified. This is silly: we all get vaccinated against a variety of diseases, some of which quite rare. We also take insurance against a variety of accidents or mishaps, some of which extremely remote. Our actions are not necessarily based on fear of some real danger: they are merely precautionary.

The same is true of this argument: the author is assuming that the government acted to prevent a situation from arising because there was a real danger that this situation will arise. There doesn't have to be any such danger. The government may be taking precautionary steps to insure the industry against an extremely remote chance of bankruptcy, and their actions may be motivated by purely economic reasons. This is why answer choice (D) in Q22 is so helpful in justifying the editorial's argumentation.

[voodoochild]

Our actions are not necessarily based on fear of some real danger: they are merely precautionary.

Nikki - thanks for your reply. I am not clear about this : we take precautions because we want to prevent something bad, or in other words, because we have a fear about something. Isn't it? I fear that I may have to pay a huge medical expense, and hence I go for medical insurances with Aetna etc. Isn't it? Judiciousness in avoiding harm is because we fear that harm. Isn't it? Why would I insure for something that I don't fear? We put jackets during rafting because we have a fear of drowning in gushing stream. I guess that's where the gap is. I believe that the editor's explanation is true.


Could you please correct my understanding? I am a bit confused.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

I'd suggest that the key word in Nikki's explanation isn't "danger" (or bad or harm), but "real." And by that he means some imminent, relatively certain occurrence.

Does taking medical insurance mean that you shortly expect to be sick (or, in your own words, "injury must result")? No, you may actually think it is quite a longshot, and that's the point I believe Nikki is making.

Thanks!

[voodoochild]

Dave,

Thanks for your reply. I think that the crux of the issue is in understanding "the country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe " + "The public's fear, therefore, is well founded."

When I read this, I translated it as "the nuclear plants are not entirely safe" -- they could be 50% safe, 20% or 90%. It's 'not all'. This doesn't mean that the power plants are unsafe (Or 100% unsafe). Isn't it?

I am a bit confused. Please let me know. Thanks