Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S4 · Q13 Proponents of nuclear power

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Proponents of nuclear power point out that new nuclear plants are so technologically sophisticated that the chances of a meltdown are extremely small.

Opposing Point

Proponents of nuclear power point out that new nuclear plants are so technologically sophisticated that the chances of a meltdown are extremely small.

Evidence

The consequences of a meltdown are absolutely catastrophic.

Conclusion

It would still be unwise to build nuclear power plants.

Evaluate

The argument reasons by comparing the small chance of a meltdown with the catastrophic consequences of a meltdown and argues that the small chance of the meltdown make the it unwise to take such a risk.

13.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?

  1. Many mountain climbers claim that

    Wrong Premise

    This argument asserts that the chances of a mishap are greater than it may seem. The original argument does not contest the likelihood of an accident but rather asserts that the consequences of a mishap outweigh the low chance of a mishap.

    2% picked this

  2. Eating a serving of vegetables

    Wrong Premise

    This argument asserts that it is not a single instance of eating vegetables that makes it worthwhile, but rather that the benefits are realized over the long run.

    1% picked this

  3. Skydivers always use two parachutes:

    Wrong Premise

    This argument rests on comparing the benefits with the costs and suggests that the benefits are not enough to warrant the risk. Minimizing the benefits is different than emphasizing the potential risk.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    The risk of serious injury

    Why this is right

    This argument parallels the reasoning in the stimulus by suggesting that the consequences of a bad outcome outweigh the fact that the chances of such an outcome are small.

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

    91% picked this

  5. People complain about having to

    Wrong Premise

    This argument rests on a different premise than the argument in the stimulus. This minimizes the cost of compliance rather than emphasizing the potential risk.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free