Antinuclear activist: The closing of the nuclear power plant is a victory for the antinuclear cause. ██ ████ ██████████ █ ███████ ██████████████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███████
███████ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ████████ ████ █████████ █████████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ██████████████ ███ ████████ ██████████████ ████ ████████ ███ █████████ ████████
We have two speakers in this stimulus: an antinuclear activist, and a nuclear power plant manager, each of whom discuss a recent nuclear plant closure. The activist doesn't make an argument, just a couple of factual claims: that the closure was a victory for the antinuclear cause, and that it represents the power industry's acknowledgement of the danger of nuclear plants.
The manager, on the other hand, makes an argument concluding that the closure was not due to safety considerations, but economic ones. The manager explains the economic factors that (allegedly) caused the plant's closure: cheap nonnuclear power and the cost of safety inspections and repairs.
The reasoning in the manager’s ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
fails to acknowledge ████ ███ █████ ████████ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████
The manager concludes in part that the plant closure doesn't represent an acknowledgement of danger—it was due to economic, not safety considerations. But even if the power industry later decided that nuclear power was unsafe, that's not a flaw in the argument, because it happened after the closure.
The argument is specifically about why the closure happened, meaning any relevant change in beliefs had to come before the closure. (A) is a tempting trap answer because it invokes a relevant idea in the argument, but the timing is wrong for (A) to really be a flaw.
overlooks the possibility ████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ██ █████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ████████
The manager's argument is just about the reasons this nuclear plant shut down. The relative safety of other power sources is neither here nor there. We know for sure that there are cheap alternatives to nuclear power. Overlooking their safety isn't a flaw; it's their cost that matters.
mistakes the issue ██ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ████
The activist and the manager are both concerned with the power industry's reasons for closing the plant. They're arguing about whether or not the closure constituted an "acknowledgement" of danger, which necessarily involved why the closure happened. Public opinion doesn't make a difference.
takes as one ██ ███ ████████ █ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████████████ ████████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████████████ ████
The manager does contradict the activist's view that the power industry has acknowledged a danger from nuclear plants. However, this is a conclusion supported by evidence that the closure was for economic reasons. It's not inherently a flaw to draw a conclusion that disagrees with the activist.
counts as purely ████████ ██████████████ ████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████████
In concluding that the closure was for economic and not safety reasons, the manager cites costs such as... safety inspections and safety repairs. These clearly have a safety element as well as an economic one, but the manager acts as though they're unrelated to safety to better justify the conclusion that safety wasn't involved in the closure.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic