Interested! Thank you so much for doing this!

I chose C initially because I thought because Anders is confusing high quality with higher cost, he therefore missed the point of issue. The lesson I took for this one is never assume anything the stimulus didn’t say.

Ok I was so careless to choose the wrong answer on this one. I chose E because I thought E says gasoline adds no more CO to the atm than plants can absorb. Just out of curiosity tho, if E actually says NO more, would the answer choice be E then?

#help (Added by Admin)

I did the question wrong because I misidentified the conclusion. Originally I thought the sentence “ these emergencies could be avoided....” as the conclusion. After JY’s explanation I started to see the correct conclusion, but in my mind I still think the 2nd sentence could be the conclusion. It feels more like an author’s opinion rather than context which normally contains only factual statement. I feel that even I come across the question again, I still won’t identify the conclusion correctly. Does anyone have the same confusion or any tips of how to analyze this type of argument?

I was swinging between A and B because I felt that A kind of implied that the license represents the authority’s recognition of the safety of the plant. I can see why B is the correct answer. As many fellas have said in the discussion forum, B says that the closure of the plant is due to the antinuclear cause. I guess if so that must mean the conclusion of the activist’s argument is that the plant was shut down is the victory of antinuclear cause. My question is, what role does the sentence “it also represents ... that they can not operate the plant safely” serve in this argument? Because I don’t think it’s the premise. I thought it was part of the conclusion. That’s why I was trying to look for an answer that supports that the reason for shutting down the plant is primarily safety issues.