PrepTest 107, Section 1, Question 21
Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear(105 more words not shown)
If all of the statements(27 more words not shown)
- AThe government's claim(11 more words not shown)
- BThe government's position(6 more words not shown)
- CThe government misrepresented(10 more words not shown)
- DUnlimited financial liability(18 more words not shown)
- EThe only serious(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If the plants are entirely safe, why does the industry need protection from accident claims? The government's words and actions seem to be pulling in different directions.
The financial language is worth slowing down for. The government says unlimited liability threatens bankruptcy only if injured people can successfully bring claims against the industry. Those claims, in turn, require injuries from a nuclear accident. If the plants truly present no danger, where would those injuries come from? On the government's own account, there would be no accident claims to bankrupt the industry.
But does that prove the public should fear an accident? Not quite. Perhaps the plants really are safe and the government has misunderstood the need for financial protection. Or perhaps the protection is needed and the safety claim is wrong. Something does not fit, but we haven't established which part is mistaken.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what must be true if the supporting statements accurately describe the government's position. That's an unusual task after an argument: we're not being asked to accept the editorial's conclusion. I don't have a more specific prediction than the problem we've already noticed. The government's position doesn't add up.
Working the answers
- A
We don't know that the safety claim is the mistaken part. The plants might be safe while the claimed need for financial protection is mistaken. Showing that two positions do not fit together doesn't establish which one is false.
- BCorrect
The government says there is no danger of an accident, but also says it needs to protect the industry against bankruptcy from claims that require an accident. Those positions conflict. B identifies that inconsistency without pretending we have settled whether the plants are actually dangerous.
- C
The government might have accurately stated its reason: protecting the industry from bankruptcy. That reason could rest on a mistake rather than a deliberate misrepresentation. Or the danger could be real and the safety claim could be the problem. Neither possibility establishes that the government misrepresented its reasons for limiting liability.
- D
That would follow if the plants really were entirely safe and accident claims therefore could not arise. But their actual safety hasn't been established. If accidents can happen, unlimited liability might pose a serious financial threat. D chooses one side of the unresolved problem.
- E
What about the people injured in an accident? A financial threat to the industry would not rule out serious threats to human safety. The passage explicitly discusses injury claims, so there is no basis for making financial security the only serious concern.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.