LSAT 133 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 133 - Section 2 - Question 03

June 2011

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:53

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT133 S2 Q03	+LR +Exp	Strengthen +Streng Net Effect +NetEff	A 2% 158 B 1% 160 C 94% 165 D 1% 154 E 3% 157	125 135 146	+Easier	147.633 +SubsectionMedium

Safety considerations aside, nuclear power plants are not economically feasible. While the cost of fuel for nuclear plants is significantly lower than the cost of conventional fuels, such as coal and oil, nuclear plants are far more expensive to build than are conventional power plants.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that nuclear power plants are not economically feasible. He supports this by saying that nuclear plants are far more expensive to build than conventional power plants.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that nuclear power plants aren’t economically feasible, simply because they’re more expensive to build. He ignores any potential long-term benefits of nuclear power plants that might outweigh their building costs and make them more economically feasible over time.
For example, nuclear plants might last longer or need far less maintenance than conventional plants. He also assumes that the lower ongoing fuel costs of nuclear plants won't offset the higher initial building costs.

Safety regulations can increase the costs of running both conventional and nuclear power plants.

Irrelevant— the author says that he isn’t addressing safety concerns. But even if he did address safety concerns, (A) shows that safety regulations increase the costs of both kinds of plants. This doesn’t strengthen the argument that nuclear plants aren’t economically feasible.

Conventional power plants spend more time out of service than do nuclear power plants.

This weakens the author’s argument by providing an economic benefit of nuclear plants. If conventional plants spend more time out of service, nuclear plants might be more economically feasible over time.

The average life expectancy of a nuclear power plant is shorter than that of a conventional one.

This provides an additional cost of nuclear power plants. If nuclear plants have a shorter lifespan than conventional plants, they may indeed be less economically feasible, since more would need to be built over time.

Nuclear power plants cost less to build today than they cost to build when their technology was newly developed.

Irrelevant— even if nuclear power plants are cheaper now, we still don't know if they are economically feasible. This fails to provide any other costs that would make them unfeasible.

As conventional fuels become scarcer their cost will increase dramatically, which will increase the cost of running a conventional power plant.

This weakens the argument that nuclear plants are not economically feasible. If the cost of conventional plants will increase dramatically, then nuclear plants might actually be more economically feasible over time.

LSAT 133 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 133 - Section 2 - Question 03

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel