PT7.S1.Q21

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2
Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3
Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4
Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

PrepTest 7 - Section 1 - Question 21

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Support The initial causes of serious accidents at nuclear power plants have not so far been flaws in the advanced-technology portion of the plants. ███████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ████ █ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ███████ █ ██████ ███ ███████ █ █████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████

Stimulus Structure

The author first makes a general statement: until now, the initial causes of serious accidents in nuclear power plants haven't been failures of advanced technology. Instead, the author claims that these accidents have been caused by human error, providing two examples of cases where human error has led to accidents. The stimulus ends with the claim that such events "cannot be thought unlikely to occur over the long run."

Notable Inferences

Notice that there isn't really a conclusion to this argument as it stands. The last sentence isn't "supported" by the previous one so much as it adds additional information: the idea that cases like the examples provided can't be considered unlikely to happen.

Given the question stem, it might be useful to think of what conclusion these statements would support. The last sentence in particular seems geared to suggest the idea that nuclear plants should factor in ongoing human error as a major part in their security plans.

Analysis by ArdaschirArguelles

Show answer

21.

Which one of the following ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████

Now that nuclear █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ █ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███████████████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██ █████████

Not supported. First, the stimulus doesn't give us any reason to think that nuclear power generation has actually "become a part of everyday life." Second, the idea that problems due to human error might not be unlikely, and have caused serious accidents in the past, doesn't mean we can expect an "ever-increasing yearly incidence" of accidents.

If nuclear power ██████ ████████ ██ ██████████ █ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ █ █████ ██ ███ ███████████

This is supported by the stimulus, though it might be tricky to see why. It's true that incidents like the examples provided in the stimulus might not always — or even most of the time — lead to serious nuclear accidents. But without specific opposing information on this front, the fact that such incidents are "everyday", based on simple errors, and "not unlikely" to occur makes it at least plausible to argue that if nuclear plants continue in operation, a serious accident is not improbable.

The likelihood of █████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███ █████████

Not supported. The stimulus doesn't tell us anything about the effect of design on human error, either way.

The design of ███████ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █████ █████████████

Not supported. The stimulus doesn't say anything specific about the design of nuclear power plants or how it relates to the materials used to construct those plants.

No serious accident ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████████████ ███████ ██ █ ███████ █████ ██████

Not supported. Just because no flaw in the advanced-technology portion of a nuclear plant has yet caused an accident doesn't mean such a flaw will never cause an accident.

Difficulty

Question

75% of people who answer get this correct

This is a difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 146

154

75% 163

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Most strongly supported

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

155

75%

167

15%

157

153

159

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!