Editorial: The government claims

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Trigger Match5% picked this

   If the government claims that something is unsafe then, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that thing should

   This doesn't apply to the conversation at hand, because the government has not claimed that nuclear power is unsafe. They've done the opposite.

   5%
2. B

   Bad Trigger Match20% picked this

   Fear that a certain kind of event will occur is well founded if those who have control over the occurrence of events of that

   The outcome of this rule, fear that a certain event will occur is well founded, is a perfect match for our conclusion, so we just need to see if the trigger was established. Who has control over the occurrence of a nuclear accident event? Presumably, it's the nuclear power plants. Do they stand to benefit financially from a nuclear accident? No. The government is acting to protect the nuclear industry from going totally bankrupt should such an accident occur, but the industry would still owe lots of money in liability damages.

   20%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match25% picked this

   If a potentially dangerous thing is safe only because the financial security of those responsible for its operation depends on its being safe, then

   The outcome of this rule is "eliminating dependence [on nuclear power] is not in the best interest of the public". That is nowhere close to our actual conclusion, "the public's fear of a nuclear accident is well founded". If we contraposed this rule, then the outcome would say, "thus, a potentially dangerous thing is safe for reasons beyond the fact that the financial security of the nuclear industry depends on its being safe", which also is nowhere near the conclusion.

   25%
4. D

   Correct48% picked this

   The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about what situations will arise, but it does not act to prevent a certain kind of situation from

   Why this is right

   Let's focus on the second half of this sentence first, since "there is a real danger such a situation will arise" is how we'd match our conclusion about "well-founded fear". That second half of the sentence says the government is acting there is a real to prevent a certain kind of → danger that situation from arising situation will arise The government is acting to prevent the kind of situation where there's a nuclear accident and the nuclear industry goes bankrupt, so according to this rule, there is a real danger that a nuclear accident could happen, causing bankruptcy for the nuclear industry. So this answer successfully takes us from Premise language to Conclusion language. What about that first part -- the government sometimes makes unsupported claims about what situations will arise? This matches up with the first sentence, in which the government makes a claim that the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless. It's not needed to make our answer good and it's not really doing anything to strengthen the effectiveness of our answer, but it's acknowledging the potential counterevidence in the first sentence.

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   48%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   If a real financial threat to a major industry exists, then government action to limit

   This answer would help us strengthen the idea that "the government is correct to try to limit the nuclear industry's liability in the event of a nuclear accident", which has nothing to do with the conclusion we're trying to strengthen: the public's fear of a nuclear accident is well-founded.

   2%