Q23 - Antinuclear Activist: The closing of

[tzyc]

How does (B) support the activist's claim?
Because the pressure is from antinuclear groups??

Thank you

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

How does (B) support the activist's claim?
Because the pressure is from antinuclear groups??

Thank you

You got it! All we need is an answer choice that supports the view that the closing of the nuclear power plant represents a victory for the activists. If the activists were pushing for the mandate for the inspections and repairs--as stated in answer choice (B), then the closing of the nuclear power plant is at least in part attributable to the activists.

Incorrect Answers
(A) provides a reason for closing down the plant, but not one that would imply a victory for the activists.
(C) and (D) support the plant manager's view of why the nuclear power plant was forced to shut down.
(E) is irrelevant. This may provide a negative impact of the plant's closing, but will not support the activists view that the shutdown represents a victory for the antinuclear cause.

[WaltGrace1983]

I got this one wrong, choosing (C) instead of (B) and I want to go through what I did wrong/right and hopefully get some insight from one of you guys.

What I did wrong: I have seen this stimuli before when I was drilling but there was a different question attached (Q22). However, when drilling today I saw this question independently from the test using the Cambridge packets of the questions split up by type. Thus, I only read the "antinuclear activists'" portion of the passage. I should have read the whole thing because that probably would have made this answer more clear.

I thought this was a really strange question because there really isn't a core per se (someone correct me if I am wrong). It is really just asking about the following phrase: "The closing of the nuclear plant is a victory for the antinuclear group." Thus, it was really hard to think of a flaw because the flaw is usually in the connection between the premise and the conclusion - this didn't seem to have that.

Antinuclear Activist says...

The closing of the nuclear power plant is a victory for the antinuclear cause

Plant Manager says...

The availability of cheap power from nonnuclear sources, safety inspections, and repairs made operation uneconomic
→
It was not safety but economic considerations that dictated the plant's closing
→
The closing is not a victory for the antinuclear cause

(A) Simply provides a tidbit of information that may have helped its closing. This might even weaken the argument because it says that, "hey, the antinuclear activists had nothing to do with the plant's closing! the license simply expired."

(D) This is a little bit tempting because it says that closing was a great thing. However, this doesn't really relate to the idea of being a victory for the antinuclear cause. The operating costs were high. So what? The operating costs for other nonnuclear plants are probably high too.

(E) This is just really out of scope, simply providing an example of one thing the plant could do. Who cares?

I am, however, a little confused on (B) and (C).

My thinking for (C) was, "well if the plant closed only because a nonnuclear source was available, this would mean that the nonnuclear source won over the nuclear source. This seems like a victory to me." I think I got a little confused on the word cause, I was thinking less about the people that were involved in the cause and more of the idea of actually overtaking nuclear power itself. Is this where I went wrong?

However, I understand why (B) is good too. I initially eliminated this because it wasn't a part of the activist's passage. Well, I learned my lesson. This seems to use a different form of the word cause, perhaps saying that the antinuclear groups really instituted all of the pressure that eventually caused the plant to shut down. Thus, they won in the sense that they wanted this plant closed and they got that plant closed. Good job, antinuclear activists!

[ohthatpatrick]

A few quick thoughts:

- While it seemingly makes sense to just read the anti-nuclear activist's claim, I normally find that it does us no good (and frequently some bad) to ignore the 2nd person's speech. Frequently, there's something in the other person's speech that we need for context.

- I see what you're saying about the idea that "as long as the nuclear plant closed, that's a victory for the antinuclear cause." However, in that case, all five answer choices are valid. After all, we already KNOW that the nuclear plant closed. That fact is a victory for the antinuclear cause, in the sense that people who have antinuclear sentiments will be happy that the nuclear plant closed.

But in order for this question to make any sense, LSAT must be interpreting "a victory for our cause" more along the lines of "WE made it happen".

If it just meant "we're happy that it happened, whatever the reason", then all five answers would work.

- You're right, there's no argument. The question stem doesn't refer to the activist's paragraph as an "argument" or "reasoning". It's just a "claim to victory".

So there is no core to evaluate. We just need something that helps us believe that the ACTIVISTS were successful in shutting down the factory. It's THEIR victory; they helped to get the factory shut down.

(B) is actually the only answer that addresses the activists, so it's really the only relevant choice we have.

In order to be convinced that THEY helped cause the shutdown, I need to hear SOMETHING about what they did.

(C) weakens the activists' claim to victory. (C) is saying that the real cause of the shutdown was the availability of cheap nonnuclear power. We don't have any reason (or textual support) for thinking that the activists had anything to do with making cheap nonnuclear power readily available, so (C) makes it seem like something ELSE, not the activists, caused the plant to shutdown.

Hope this helps.

[WaltGrace1983]

So let me just get this straight to make sure I understand...

We want to support the idea that the closing (which we already know happened as stated by both parties) is a victory for the antinuclear cause. The reason why (C) doesn't work is because we are given this sufficient condition that really doesn't matter: IF cheap power had not been available. Cheap power WAS available. The plant DID close. Anything else is just conjecture. However I do have an interesting question for you while we are on the topic. Let's say that (C) instead said the following...

The plant would not have closed IF the activists failed to do anything

Wouldn't this also be an incorrect answer? After all, we still don't know if the activists actually DID anything. That is what (B) states and that is why it would seemingly be a better answer. However, I could be wrong. What do you think?

[ohthatpatrick]

Your conditional:
The plant would not have closed IF the activists failed to do anything

would look like this

Activists did nothing --> plant wouldn't have closed

Contrapositive:
Plant closed --> activists did something

Since we know that the plant closed, this answer would tell us that the activists did something.

However, the way you worded it, it wouldn't tell us that the activists "did something to bring about the closing of the nuclear plant", just that they "did something".