PT21 · S2 · Q22 Antinuclear activist: The closing of the nuclear power plant

Since this answer begins with a fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we treat the idea that follows like a Weaken answer choice. Can we hurt this manager's argument by saying that "the power industry might now believe nuclear power plants are unsafe, even though this plant wasn't closed for safety reasons"? No, because the author's conclusion is that "THIS plant was not closed for safety considerations / this plant's closing was not an acknowledgment that nuclear plants can't be operated safely." If we grant the author that this plant wasn't closed for safety reasons, then she won the case. She got us to admit that her Intermediate Conclusion is correct.

Since this answer begins with a fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we treat the idea that follows like a Weaken answer choice. Can we hurt this manager's argument by saying that "the cheaper nonnuclear sources of power also have safety concerns"? No, because the author is only claiming that this nuclear plant was shut down for economic, not safety, considerations. We can only weaken the author with an answer that helps us to argue that "this nuclear plant was shut down for safety considerations (at least in part)". Talking about nonnuclear energy sources won't help us with that goal.

Out of Scope: what it represents to public This answer is structured like mistakes X for Y When we say, "Sorry, I mistook you for my friend Bob", we're saying the incorrect perception was Bob but the reality was you. So we would analyze these answers asking ourselves, "Was the reality X, and the misconception Y"? But we might not even have to think that hard here. Once we see this answer is saying the author confused "what this plant closure represents to the public", we can stop. The argument was never talking about how the public interprets the plant closure. This argument centers around whether the plant (in actuality) closed for purely economic considerations or whether safety considerations were a part of it.

The activist's view is that the closing of the nuclear plant is a victory for the antinuclear cause. Did the manager have a contradictory premise? Did she say "this closing does not represent a victory for the antinuclear cause"? No. The activist's view is also that the closing of the nuclear plant is an acknowledgement by the power industry that they can't operate such plants safely. Did the manager have a contradictory premise? No. Her premise is that "availability of cheap nonnuclear power and the high cost of safety inspections/repairs made continued operation uneconomic". That is not contradicting the activist. We might say that the manager's first sentence or last sentence seems to contradict the activist's view, but two issues remain: 1. these are the manager's conclusions, not her premises 2. so what if the manager contradicts something the activist said! Where is there a rule that says "When X is making an argument that rebuts Y, X is not allowed to contradict anything Y said"? We're trying to judge how the internal reasoning of the manager's argument is flawed. We don't really care what the activist said or whether any part of the manager's argument contradicts something the activist said.