#22 - Antinuclear activist: The closing of the nuclear power

[NeverMissing]

I'm having real trouble understanding why A is incorrect. My prephrase was "fails to consider that the power industry might still believe power plants to be unsafe even if the plant was closed for economic reasons." This fits right in line with A.

I must have misunderstood the argument. Is it that the the manager's argument isn't about nuclear power safety in general, only the specific cause of closing for the specific nuclear plant in question?

[Charlie Melman]

Hi NeverMissing,

The manager's argument is that the closure of the nuclear power plant in question does not constitute an acknowledgement by the power industry that it cannot operate nuclear power plants safely.

Answer choice (A) is problematic for a couple reasons. First, we don't know whether or not the plant in question was closed for safety reasons, as the final part of the answer choice suggests. Second, a failure to acknowledge that nuclear power plants might be unsafe is not a flaw. All the manager is saying is that the closure of this plant doesn't constitute an acknowledgement. Maybe they believe plants are unsafe in general, but as long as the closure of this plant isn't an acknowledgement of that belief, the manager's arguments are intact. All we know is that the plant closed for economic reasons. Answer choice (E) links economic reasons and the safety of plants.

Hope this helps!

[yrivers]

Hi,

I had some trouble finding the flaw behind the nuclear power plant manager's argument. Taking a second look, I decided it was that despite the fact a nuclear power plant closed, the closing could represent something else/additional to the the antinuclear cause. So in other words, it could still represent a victory to the antinuclear cause. So the cause and representation of the closing of the nuclear plant are independent (flaw).

Perhaps this is incorrect. I chose A but see that E is correct. Can you please explain why A and B are incorrect and E correct?

Thanks,
Yaesul

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi,

I had some trouble finding the flaw behind the nuclear power plant manager's argument. Taking a second look, I decided it was that despite the fact a nuclear power plant closed, the closing could represent something else/additional to the the antinuclear cause. So in other words, it could still represent a victory to the antinuclear cause. So the cause and representation of the closing of the nuclear plant are independent (flaw).

Perhaps this is incorrect. I chose A but see that E is correct. Can you please explain why A and B are incorrect and E correct?

Thanks,
Yaesul

Hi Yaesul!

I think you meant to post this under the December 1996 test, not June 2010. I am moving this post to that forum, but if you were referring to a different question than December 1996 LR1 Section II #22, please let us know!

Thanks!

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi yrivers,

The flaw in the Manager's argument is that he stats that the plant closed for purely uneconomic reasons, but states that those economic reasons include the price of safety inspections and safety repairs. If it is to expensive to make safety repairs, then isn't that a failure to operate nuclear plants safely?

A is wrong because failing to acknowledge that the power industry now believes nuclear plants are unsafe is irrelevant to his argument that this plant closed for purely economic reasons.

B is wrong because it is completely outside the scope of the stimulus. What does the safety concerns of the non-nuclear plants have to do with why this nuclear plant closed? It doesn't appear that it matters at all.

Finally, E is correct for the reason I outline above.

[Sunlightshan]

Hi yrivers,

The flaw in the Manager's argument is that he stats that the plant closed for purely uneconomic reasons, but states that those economic reasons include the price of safety inspections and safety repairs. If it is to expensive to make safety repairs, then isn't that a failure to operate nuclear plants safely?

A is wrong because failing to acknowledge that the power industry now believes nuclear plants are unsafe is irrelevant to his argument that this plant closed for purely economic reasons.

B is wrong because it is completely outside the scope of the stimulus. What does the safety concerns of the non-nuclear plants have to do with why this nuclear plant closed? It doesn't appear that it matters at all.

Finally, E is correct for the reason I outline above.

Hi,

I understand why E is right, but I still dont understand why C is incorrect. Could you please also offer some guidance on this part?

Thank you,
SS

[KelseyWoods]

Hi SS!

Answer choice (C) states "mistakes the issues of what the closure of the plant represents to the public for the issue of what the managers’ reasons for the closure were." That's describing a flaw in which the speaker misunderstands the point the first speaker made and addresses an irrelevant issue. But, in this case, the reasons for the plant's closure are directly relevant to what the closing of the plant represents. (Also notice that neither of them are specifically talking about what the closing of the plant represents "to the public." It's a subtle distinction, but they are debating the "takeaway" or lesson learned from the plant closure, not specifically talking about public perception.) The manager is using the reasons for the plant closure to directly address what the closing of the plant represents. So the flaw is not mistaking those two issues. Rather, the flaw is as (E) describes, arguing that the plant closed for purely economic reasons even while admitting that many of those economic reasons were safety-based.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[tetsuya0129]

Hi there,

I was stuck between B and E.

B was very tempting because the manager not only concludes economic consideration as the dictating cause but also denies safety consideration as a possible cause. (Thus, safety concern is a part of its argumentation.) But its reasoning is only a cost-benefit analysis. So my prediction was something like "what about nonnuclear resources were much safer". Yet, what B says is these resources are likely to have safety concerns too. Then the comparison about safety became tied. This is why I eventually went with E.

But I really couldn't see why B is irrelevant given that its wording is "overlooks the possibility that...." and the manager's making it a part of its conclusion.

I would really appreciate it if someone could address my question.

Thank you for your time,
Leon

[Dave Killoran]

Hi there,

I was stuck between B and E.

B was very tempting because the manager not only concludes economic consideration as the dictating cause but also denies safety consideration as a possible cause. (Thus, safety concern is a part of its argumentation.) But its reasoning is only a cost-benefit analysis. So my prediction was something like "what about nonnuclear resources were much safer". Yet, what B says is these resources are likely to have safety concerns too. Then the comparison about safety became tied. This is why I eventually went with E.

But I really couldn't see why B is irrelevant given that its wording is "overlooks the possibility that...." and the manager's making it a part of its conclusion.

I would really appreciate it if someone could address my question.

Thank you for your time,
Leon

Hi Leon,

Thanks for the question! Ricky aptly described why this answer is wrong above: "B is wrong because it is completely outside the scope of the stimulus. What does the safety concerns of the non-nuclear plants have to do with why this nuclear plant closed? It doesn't appear that it matters at all." So let's look more closely at that.

Answer choice (B) states that the reasoning, "overlooks the possibility that the sources from which cheap power is available might themselves be subject to safety concerns." But this isn't a comparison between the viability of nuclear vs nonnuclear power, or even a safety comparison between the two. Instead, watch the course of the two arguments in simplified form:

• Activist: Safety concerns caused the closing of the nuclear plant.
  
  Manager: No, it was economic concerns coming from cheaper nonnuclear sources and from costs related to safety.

So, has the manager overlooked the safety issues with nonnuclear plants? I wouldn't say so: it's already been stated that these nonnuclear plants produce cheap power that caused an economic issue for the nuclear plants. So, it's a cost factor that already exists in the pricing and one could say that on that basis it wasn't overlooked.

But let's say you reject the idea in the prior paragraph as being too much of an assumption. Even so, this answer still doesn't matter because the manager is explaining why the nuclear power plant was closed. Safety issues at a different, nonnuclear plant are irrelevant to the manager's reasoning about why the nuclear power plant closed. One way to see this is to make an analogy using examples we are all a bit more familiar with:

• Activist: This Burger King closed due to health issues.
  
  Manager: No, it was economic concerns coming from cheaper burger places like McDonald's and from costs related to health inspections and protocols.
  
  
  Answer choice (B): overlooks the possibility that McDonald's might also have safety issues.

As is hopefully clearer, health issues with the McDonald's do not impact the manager's argument about this Burger King.

Thanks!

[tetsuya0129]

Dave, thank you so much. it's very clear for me now. I reviewed B again to see why I got carried away to compare nuclear and nonnuclear. I guess it was probably because when I read "source", I took it as the plant's alternative option for its power business. Also, B's "subject to safety concern" seemingly counters the manager's conclusion, so I was fooled to begin to debate for it.

Mcdonald's health concerns (if any) about its product certainly would not influence BK's decision about whether to wrap up its business, unless the argument is about a healthiness competition. And, I shall be smart enough to know BK would not use Mc's burger to operate its business.