Geologist: Support A geological fault in the mountain under which the proposed nuclear waste storage facility would be buried could, after a few thousand years, cause the contents to seep out or water to seep in. █████ ███████ █████ ███████ █████████ ███ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ █████ █ ███████ █████ ███████ ████████ █████ ████ ████████ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████
There’s a bit of mental state v. reality stuff going on in this question. Here’s a super-distilled version of the argument through that lens:
Premise: If there were in fact a geological fault, that would be really bad.
________
Conclusion: We should wait until scientists investigate whether there’s a geological fault before we build.
I don’t think this is obvious to anticipate up front, but in the testwriters’ eyes the gap in this argument is between the scientists trying to figure out whether there’s a geological fault and whether there actually is a fault. That is, it only makes sense to wait for an investigation if there’s reason to believe an investigation would be helpful.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ██████████████
In a few ████████ ██████ █████ ████████████ ███ ██ ██████ ██████
This weakens the argument, undermining the idea that seepage in a few thousand years would actually be dangerous.
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).
The scientists' investigation █████ ████████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████
I think this is best understood as guarding against a weakener – if the scientists’ investigation wouldn’t bear conclusive results, we’d have much less reason to prioritize it. They’d spend all this time investigating while we wait patiently, only for their answer to be “I dunno – maybe maybe not.”
The proposed facility ███ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████
The core of this argument’s reasoning runs from the premise “we don’t know if there’s a fault” to the conclusion “we should investigate whether there is a fault.” To the extent to which (C) is relevant, it unnecessarily bolsters the idea that we don’t know if there’s a fault. To be sure, if the facility was originally meant to be a pickleball court that makes it less likely that it was thoroughly tested for geological faults, but we already know it hasn’t been tested for faults. We need a principle that justifies calling for an investigation in situations like this one.
The scientists' investigation █████ ████████ ████████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ █████ █████ ███ █████████
This weakens the argument by introducing a factor weighing against the idea of investigation. It doesn’t entirely ruin the argument – perhaps a costly investigation is still worth it given the “disastrous” risks – but this is a strengthen question.
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).
Nuclear waste could ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ █ █████████ ██████
This also weakens the argument by offering a third option that would allow us to build the facility without incurring the risks that might develop a few thousand years from now.
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.