Q22 - Antinuclear activist: The closing

[mchuynh]

Can someone explain to me why is the answer E? I picked A..

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

Let's break down the manager's argument:

Conclusion: It was not safety, but economics that closed the plant.
Premise: high cost of mandated safety repairs and inspections

Anticipate gaps in this argument before you look at the choices. What's the difference between safety concerns and economic concerns that arise due to safety? Seems like the same thing to me, which is what (E) draws attention to.

(A) is an appealing answer choice. The trap is that it brings in the activist's argument about the industry's beliefs, which play no role in the manager's argument that we are being asked to analyze.

(E) gets to the heart of the issue -- the evidence was the cost of safety and the conclusion was that safety didn't play a role. How is that possible?

[mchuynh]

Thank you!

When I was reading the argument, I thought the manager's reasoning was flaw because he says "it represents no such thing".

He is saying that it is not safety considerations but gives evidence that points out that it IS because of safety reasons....

Then I try to find the answer that match the flaw... and I was left with A and E. I had a hard time understanding what E is trying to say and at that moment, it didn't seem like it's pointing out the flaw... so i eliminated it and picked A. For A, I thought that if it's true then it would weaken the manager's argument..so i picked it.

[peg_city]

Can someone please explain to me the reasoning behind ruling out D? I really had a hard time clearly understanding what the responses were trying to say.

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I see a couple of issues with answer choice (D). First, I wouldn't say that the nuclear power plant manager takes as a "premise" a view that contradicts the activist's view. Instead, I would say that the plant manger takes for a "conclusion" a view that contradicts the activist's view. Key words matter. A premise is unsupported evidence for the argument, whereas a conclusion is what is being supported. The twist is that the manager's view that "it represents no such thing," is an intermediate conclusion. Which makes it both evidence and a conclusion.

The other (and more devastating) issue is, even if the plant manager did take as a premise a view that contradicts the activist's view, so what? That's not a flaw. Maybe the activist's view is incorrect and the plant manager is simply pointing that out. In short contradicting someone else, is not an error. Contradicting yourself, however, is.

Does that answer your question?

[peg_city]

Yes it does.

Thanks for your help

[jamiejames]

I love that feeling when the answer suddenly click after seeing an explanation haha. I chose A myself the first time. I wanted to choose E, but it is very wordy so I skimmed over it, but it makes complete sense now. Thank you!

[nflamel69]

why is it represents no such thing not the main conclusion? I thought this is being supported by the fact that the plant is being shut down for economic reasons and not safety reasons..

[cehammock]

I don't understand why (E) is better than (C). The manager doesn't count those considerations as purely economical, but it's quite clear that the plant *could* continue to run the power plant safely *if* they were willing to spend the money.

(C) makes more sense because it matches the language of the stimulus using the word "represent." The activist believes that the closing represents acknowledgement, and that's the specific word with which the manager finds fault. The difference there is whether or not closing the power plant can represent something that the manager thinks is false.

[WaltGrace1983]

I don't understand why (E) is better than (C). The manager doesn't count those considerations as purely economical, but it's quite clear that the plant *could* continue to run the power plant safely *if* they were willing to spend the money.

(C) makes more sense because it matches the language of the stimulus using the word "represent." The activist believes that the closing represents acknowledgement, and that's the specific word with which the manager finds fault. The difference there is whether or not closing the power plant can represent something that the manager thinks is false.

A few things:

(1) What is in blue can be a dangerous, dangerous, habit. Matching language points in a good direction sometimes but it is never the reason to pick an answer. I am not saying that this is exactly what you are implying but either way.

(2) C is very wrong for a few reasons. The first thing is that we don't know anything about what the "closure of the plant represents to the public." If we are going to be introducing new information, we better have a reason for it! Another thing is that we have to remember that we are looking at the manager's argument. The manager's argument, while a response to the activist's argument, should be read on its own but in the context of the activist's argument. So (C) is saying that the manager mistakes the issue of what the plant's closure represents to the public for what his reasons are. Thus, the manager is mistaking HIS OWN reasons for what the closure represents to the public. Just think about that. It even hardly makes sense. This is most likely a trap answer for those that were more reliant on the activist's argument.

(3) E is better because E is right. On the LSAT, there is not better and worse (though I guess you may be able to make an argument for strengthen/weaken questions). There is right and wrong. Having this mindset will help. Trust me.

[cyt5015]

why is it represents no such thing not the main conclusion? I thought this is being supported by the fact that the plant is being shut down for economic reasons and not safety reasons..

"It represents no such thing" is the main conclusion, and "Thus it was not safety consideration..." is the intermediate conclusion. However, the flaw is at the support of premise to the intermediate conclusion rather than to the main conclusion.

[Pear666]

Can someone explain why B is incorrect? B looks like a narrow version of E to me.

[jeanne'sjean]

Can someone explain why B is incorrect? B looks like a narrow version of E to me.

Same question! Help! Why B is not correct? I stuck between B and E and finally chose B Is that because the subject thereof is SOURCES from which the cheap power is available, rather than the cheap power itself? But I don't know how that relate much

[XiaoyanJ307]

Would someone please explain why A is wrong more specifically? I understand why E is right. but don't get why A is wrong.

The manager's conclusion is that "it represent no such thing". which means "it doesn't represent acknowledgement by the power industry that they cannot operate such plants safely."
And the choice A means that even manager proved the plant closed because of economic consideration, it didn't rule out safety consideration?

[SherrilynM911]

^ Yeah, could someone could elaborate more on why E is better than A? The manager says that it was the COST of those safety inspections and repairs, not the repairs and inspections themselves. Wouldn't "cost" fall under economic concerns? The activist also said that this was a BELATED acknowledgement of safety concerns, and A reflects that. A also says that "this plant was not closed for safety reasons" which could be true - the plant could have passed every single test with flying colors, but the COST of the tests, like the manager pointed out, was why they closed.

[LolaC289]

I'll take a look at why (A) is not the correct answer here.

First, I agree that the argument structure goes like this: the first sentence is the main conclusion, the last sentence is the intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion. All things in the middle are premises supporting the conclusion.

However, since flaws can happen everywhere from premise to intermediate conclusion, or intermediate conclusion to the main conclusion, even if you have a different opinion on the argument structure, it doesn't prevent you from approaching the correct answer.

So the argument goes:

Premise: Cheap powers are available + The cost of mandate safety process too high
Intermediate Conclusion: It was not safety considerations, but economic considerations that dictate the plant's closing
Main Conclusion: The closing of the nuclear plants ("it") doesn't represent the power industry has acknowledged that they cannot operate such plants safely ("such thing").

(A) tries to attack the support from intermediate conclusion to the main conclusion. That even if the industry closed the plants for economic reasons, it still can be that they now believe the plants are unsafe.

On first look we may think, oh yeah, so the closing of the plant can still represent "such thing"! But pay attention: what the "thing" represents in his conclusion is the acknowledgement in operating the plants safely, which has nothing to do with whether the industry considers the plant itself safe or not. As a matter of fact, whether the plants themselves safe or not is not even mentioned in either the activist or the manager's view!

And it's very possible that those who chose to operate the nuclear plants actually think the nuclear plants could be dangerous, but they believe in their skills so much and still believe they can operate the plants safely.

Thus (A) is wrong because although it echoes the word "safety" superficially, it doesn't actually address the manager's conclusion accurately.
This is the trap answer in this question for me, we have to read closely.

[LolaC289]

And I really think why (E) is right deserves further digging into this question. This is a really great question that shows how our minds can be distracted by the test writers.

The fact that the manager uses "it was not 'safety considerations' but 'economic considerations'" really obscures what the "consideration" is in the first place. Common sense coming into play, we naturally regards the "safety considerations" as to the safety issue concerning the nuclear plant itself. While it may be true in real life, it's not in this case.

What the activist says is that the closing of the plant shows the power industry now acknowledges they can't operate such plants safely. What the manager's trying to establish is that the closing is due to mere economic reason, namely, the cost of mandated safety inspections and safety repairs, instead of safety reason.

But wait. If the closing doesn't represent the industry's acknowledgement of incapability, why do you fear about the expenses of safety inspection and safety repairs (especially the latter, then)? Only if you are unsafe will you need to repair and pay a lot of extra money. If you are 100% sure you can handle it safely, what's to be fear about, so to speak?

The fact that the industry stopped the plant for fearing about possible economic consequence may arise out of safety concerns, reflected they have this concern in itself.

I don't think my reasoning above is airtight, because in the manager's short argument he didn't make clear how the economic expense correlates with the safety inspection and safety repairs and etc. But I do think it's one viable way to look at his argument, again because he didn't make it clear. (It may has something to do with it being a earlier LSAT question. The arguments are not as clear and as airtight as they are now, generally speaking.)
And it is somewhat implied in answer choice (E) a little bit, with the way the test writer describe their concern as the "need to take safety precautions" (precaution means to measures taken against potential accidents).

For instance:

Wang says the reason he stopped driving cars and chose to walk instead is because he doesn't want to pay the traffic fines, and he claims which to be merely economic concern instead of safety concern.

But if you are as confident as you said, Wang, why do you fear you will be fined in the first place?

Hope this helps and looking forward to extending discussion from future humans. Hey! it's 5:09 pm in Beijing, 2018. : )

[KevinD705]

I'm struggling to see why E is the best answer. "if you are as confident as you said, why do you fear you will be fined in the first place?" I don't see that logic being analogous to the question because the stimulus says "the cost of mandated safety inspections and safety repairs." This leads me to believe whether the plant is safe or not safe there is an additional mandated cost (compared to driving safely = no fine.....not driving safely=fine....thusly, making it an economic consideration rather than a safety consideration.

And I really think why (E) is right deserves further digging into this question. This is a really great question that shows how our minds can be distracted by the test writers.

The fact that the manager uses "it was not 'safety considerations' but 'economic considerations'" really obscures what the "consideration" is in the first place. Common sense coming into play, we naturally regards the "safety considerations" as to the safety issue concerning the nuclear plant itself. While it may be true in real life, it's not in this case.

What the activist says is that the closing of the plant shows the power industry now acknowledges they can't operate such plants safely. What the manager's trying to establish is that the closing is due to mere economic reason, namely, the cost of mandated safety inspections and safety repairs, instead of safety reason.

But wait. If the closing doesn't represent the industry's acknowledgement of incapability, why do you fear about the expenses of safety inspection and safety repairs (especially the latter, then)? Only if you are unsafe will you need to repair and pay a lot of extra money. If you are 100% sure you can handle it safely, what's to be fear about, so to speak?

The fact that the industry stopped the plant for fearing about possible economic consequence may arise out of safety concerns, reflected they have this concern in itself.

I don't think my reasoning above is airtight, because in the manager's short argument he didn't make clear how the economic expense correlates with the safety inspection and safety repairs and etc. But I do think it's one viable way to look at his argument, again because he didn't make it clear. (It may has something to do with it being a earlier LSAT question. The arguments are not as clear and as airtight as they are now, generally speaking.)
And it is somewhat implied in answer choice (E) a little bit, with the way the test writer describe their concern as the "need to take safety precautions" (precaution means to measures taken against potential accidents).

For instance:

Wang says the reason he stopped driving cars and chose to walk instead is because he doesn't want to pay the traffic fines, and he claims which to be merely economic concern instead of safety concern.

But if you are as confident as you said, Wang, why do you fear you will be fined in the first place?

Hope this helps and looking forward to extending discussion from future humans. Hey! it's 5:09 pm in Beijing, 2018. : )

[LolaC289]

I'm struggling to see why E is the best answer. "if you are as confident as you said, why do you fear you will be fined in the first place?" I don't see that logic being analogous to the question because the stimulus says "the cost of mandated safety inspections and safety repairs." This leads me to believe whether the plant is safe or not safe there is an additional mandated cost (compared to driving safely = no fine.....not driving safely=fine....thusly, making it an economic consideration rather than a safety consideration.

Hi KevinD! I'm not a LSAT guru myself so I can't be 100% sure that my explanation is correct and is what the test writers are asking for. It's just one way to look at it. I looked back at it today and I want to to know I definitely see your point, the first time I read through it I didn't spot the flaw immediately.

However, I do think this has something to do with the nature of the flaw in this question. This is not a "definite" flaw, for which we have already established specific kinds (like the necessary/sufficient reverse flaw, whole to part flaw, etc. & etc.). For me, it is actually more about understanding of certain words in context, especially about what is "safety/economic consideration". The way the author treats it as if they are clear-cut and mutually exclusive, which we can't really be sure of.

You see, the author mentions something that in his understanding, can be regarded as "economic consideration", but then he goes on to say "thus it was not safety concerns, but economic concerns that dictated the decision". This is very strong, and while his words may lend some credence to the latter part of his argument ("it is economic concern"), he gave no support for the former part("thus it is NOT safety concern").

I see at least two points we can raise against him: First, who said the things you say is indeed, economic concern? (I argued along this way in my previous post which you quoted); Second, why can't a consideration out of some economic concerns, at the same time, has also taken into account some safety concerns?

For example (and an example I've seen a few times in actual LSAT tests...). Many mountain climbers died as a result of venturous climbing. Huge money losses have risen due to this, thus the government decided to introduce a ban on self-organised mountain climbing.

Is the ban an economic one, or a safety one? I think both can make their cases. Even with the reason mentioned, we can't be sure it's one, but no the other. In order to establish this exclusion requires much stronger support.

Still, I don't think this is a definite flaw. The author's argument is not nonsense, it makes some sense. If there were other better choices, I would probably reconsider.

Maybe this question is better approached by elimination, if you are still on the author's side.

(A) is tempting. The reason why it's wrong is it is actually out of scope. If you read carefully, the safety of plant itself has never appeared in both arguments.

The activist: ...It also represents a belated acknowledgement by the power industry that they cannot operate such plants safely.
The author: It represent no such thing!

Is nuclear plants safe in the activist's eye? Maybe yes, maybe no. But even if it is safe, his point is that the industry can't operate them safely. The belief is about operation safety, not about the plants itself.

(B) the cheap power's concern is out of scope.

(C) the author mentions nothing about the public.

(D) use the opposite side's premise and contradict his conclusion is not a flaw.

Hope this helps.