Self-study
Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless. ███ ██████████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ █████████ █████████ █████ ████ █ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ████ █ ███████ █████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ████████
The Government's Claims
The editorial walks through several positions the government has taken:
- Safety: Plants are entirely safe, so the public's fear is groundless.
- Liability limits: They're justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from bankruptcy.
- Bankruptcy threat: Unlimited liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be sustained against the industry.
- Sustained claims: For claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident.
According to the government's own claims, for unlimited liability to pose a bankruptcy threat, a nuclear accident has to produce an injury that supports a sustained claim. So the government's reasoning for limiting liability assumes that nuclear accidents producing injuries are at least possible.
The Contradiction
The government has put forward two claims that can't both be true.
Position 1: Plants are entirely safe. If that's true, no nuclear accidents happen. No accidents means no sustained injury claims. No sustained claims means unlimited liability poses no bankruptcy threat.
Position 2: Liability limits are justified by the need to protect against bankruptcy. That justification only makes sense if there really is a bankruptcy threat, which (by the government's own logic) requires that accidents producing injuries are possible.
So one position lands at "no bankruptcy threat" and the other lands at "bankruptcy threat is real." Those positions can't both be true at the same time.
22.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██████████████
a
If the government ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ███████
We have no premises that establish the government ever claimed something was unsafe. So adding (A) the argument would have no effect.
b
Fear that a ███████ ████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████
We have no premises that establish those who have control over nuclear accidents stand to benefit financially from those accidents. So (B) has no impact on the argument.
c
If a potentially █████████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ████ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████
(C) is designed to lead to a conclusion that eliminating a requirement of safety isn’t in the best interests of the public. But the conclusion doesn’t assert that something isn’t in the best interests of the public. The argument concludes that the public’s fear of nuclear accidents is well-founded. That’s a claim about the reality of a risk, not about whether something is good or bad for the public. Also, we don’t know that nuclear plants are safe only because the financial security of those responsible for them depends on their safety. Maybe there are other reasons nuclear plants are safe, too.
d
The government sometimes █████ ███████████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███████ █ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████ █████ ██ █ ████ ██████ ████ ████ █ █████████ ████ ██████
The second part of (D) establishes that if the government acts to prevent a situation, then there must be a real danger that such a situation will arise. We know from the premises that the government has acted to prevent the nuclear industry from threat of bankruptcy. According to (D), we can infer that there is a real danger that the nuclear industry will go bankrupt. Connecting that idea with the premises, we can infer that there is a real danger that injury claims can be sustained against the nuclear industry, and that therefore there is a real danger that injury will result from a nuclear accident. This supports the claim that the public’s fear is well founded.
e
If a real █████████ ██████ ██ █ █████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████
(E) concerns whether a government action is justified. But the conclusion concerns whether the public’s fear is well founded. The issue is the reality of risk from nuclear accidents, not whether what the government did was justified.