Nuclear reactors are sometimes

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: least dangerous6% picked this

   Geologically quiet regions are the least dangerous regions in which to

   This argument is only talking about the safest spots within a geologically quiet region to put a reactor. The argument never compares geologically quiet regions to any other type of region, so we can't say she must have been assuming that they're the least dangerous of all possible regions. (It's possible that other regions are more prone to earthquakes, but far less prone to tornados / hurricanes / floods / power surges / etc. So there's no reason we should assume that geologically quiet zones are the least dangerous areas)

   6%
2. B

   Too Strong: primary9% picked this

   For any potential nuclear reactor site, the likelihood of being struck by an earthquake is the primary

   Just because likelihood of being hit by an earthquake is the only type of safety risk being discussed in this paragraph doesn't mean that the author believes it's the #1 risk. If we negated this answer, we could say that "being struck by an earthquake isn't the primary determinant, but it's the second most important." The argument wouldn't be changed in any way by demoting it from #1 to #2, so it's unnecessary for the author to believe that it's the #1 risk. The author's conclusion doesn't advocate that we put a reactor near a minor fault that has recently produced a quake. If she had recommended that, then we would care about other potential risks, in evaluating her plan. But her conclusion is just a statistical one, not a prescriptive one. She's merely trying to establish a factual claim that sites near a recently-quaked minor fault would be least likely to be struck by an earthquake.

   9%
3. C

   Correct43% picked this

   In a geologically quiet region, every potential nuclear reactor site is near at least

   Why this is right

   This seems way too extreme at first blush: every potential site is near at least one minor fault? But if we have a flexible mindset (which we should, since we came to these answers relatively cluelessly), we can negate this and ask if it would weaken. Would it hurt the argument to say, in these quiet regions, there is at least one potential reactor site that isn't near any minor faults ? Yes! That seems to give us a way to fight the author's conclusion. She thinks that a site near a recently-quaked minor fault would be the least likely to be struck by an earthquake. But if there are potential sites that aren't near any minor faults, wouldn't those be even less likely to be struck by an earthquake? The sites near recently-quaked minor faults are likely to be struck by an earthquake again in 100,000 years or so. But a site that isn't near any fault lines at all is unlikely to ever by be struck by an earthquake. (note the outside knowledge needed to understand this answer: earthquakes only occur at fault lines between tectonic plates) The author was mentally comparing potential reactor sites thinking they all had a "1 quake every 100,000 years" cycle and simply saying that the most-recently quaked sites would have the longest duration before another earthquake struck. That means the author was assuming that "every site is near a minor fault. So let me figure out which minor fault would be least likely to be struck." Negating this answer gives the objection of, "wait, why are you assuming it has to be near a minor fault at all? Can't we just put it in the middle of nowhere, far from any minor fault, and have even less risk of being struck by an earthquake?"

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

   43%
4. D

   Out of Scope10% picked this

   Nuclear reactors that are located in geologically quiet regions are built to withstand at least one but not necessarily more than one

   Out of Scope: built to withstand one The author hasn't insinuated that a nuclear reactor can withstand one earthquake. She might believe that an earthquake would totally destroy a nuclear reactor. We're talking about building a reactor at a site that wouldn't have an earthquake for almost 100,000 years, so the author could just be thinking, "Yeah, at that point the earthquake will destroy the reactor, but who knows if humanity will still even exist at that point? If we do, we'll have moved on from this technology. Or if we haven't, at least we got a good 100,000 years out of the site before an earthquake destroyed the reactor."

   10%
5. E

   Too Strong32% picked this

   Earthquake faults in geologically quiet regions produce earthquakes at least once

   Too Strong: at least once every 100k This is tempting, because the author is definitely failing to consider that under the definition of "no more than 1 every 100,000 years", there could still be WIDE variation in terms of how frequently each minor fault in a quiet region produces earthquakes. But she's definitely not forced to believe there MUST be at least one earthquake per fault per 100,000 years, If we negate this answer, we get "at least one fault in a quiet region does not produce at least one quake every 100,000 years". That is not any kind of objection because the author is only saying that there can't be more than one quake every 100,000, not that all of them reliably give you exactly one quake every 100,000.

   32%