PrepTest 133, Section 2, Question 3
Safety considerations aside, nuclear power plants are not(37 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- ASafety regulations can(11 more words not shown)
- BConventional power plants(11 more words not shown)
- CThe average life(14 more words not shown)
- DNuclear power plants(16 more words not shown)
- EAs conventional fuels(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You pay to build the plant once. How long do you get to use it?
The author admits that nuclear fuel is cheaper, but points to the higher construction cost and concludes that nuclear plants aren't economically feasible. That leaves out the years after construction. If a plant operates for fifty or a hundred years, cheaper fuel could save a lot of money over that time. Perhaps those savings would eventually outweigh the extra cost of building it.
We don't know that they would. But we also don't know that the construction bill settles the question. We need to consider how much that initial cost matters over the plant's working life.
What we’re looking for
To strengthen the argument, I'd want a reason why the cheaper fuel won't make up for the larger construction expense. Maybe construction accounts for such a large share of the total cost that the savings never catch up. Look for information that makes the author's focus on building costs more convincing.
Working the answers
- A
These costs apply to both kinds of plant. That doesn't tell us whether safety regulations add a larger burden to nuclear plants or wipe out their fuel savings. The argument already sets safety considerations aside; a general statement that both types can face regulatory costs doesn't explain why nuclear plants are economically unworkable.
- B
This gives nuclear plants an advantage. If conventional plants spend more time out of service, nuclear plants may provide power more reliably over time. That doesn't help us argue that nuclear plants' higher construction costs make them a bad economic choice.
- CCorrect
A shorter working life gives a nuclear plant fewer years of cheaper fuel over which to recover its higher construction cost. It also means that, on average, we'd have to replace nuclear plants sooner than conventional plants to keep supplying power.
This isn't exactly the prediction that construction makes up a large share of the budget, but it explains why that expense could matter so much. Paying more upfront is harder to justify when the plant lasts less time. C doesn't prove that every nuclear plant loses money; it strengthens the argument by making the construction disadvantage harder to overcome.
- D
Becoming cheaper to build doesn't support the claim that building costs make nuclear power infeasible. Nuclear plants could still be more expensive than conventional ones, so this historical comparison doesn't settle the economics either way. But the change it describes reduces the burden the author relies on.
- E
Rising coal and oil prices make conventional plants more expensive to operate. That increases the attraction of nuclear plants' cheaper fuel and makes it more plausible that the operating savings could offset the construction cost. It pushes against the argument.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.