PrepTest 136, Section 4, Question 13
Proponents of nuclear power point out that new(38 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(14 more words not shown)
- AMany mountain climbers(51 more words not shown)
- BEating a serving(28 more words not shown)
- CSkydivers always use(43 more words not shown)
- DThe risk of(39 more words not shown)
- EPeople complain about(55 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The author accepts that a meltdown is unlikely. The objection is about how bad it would be if one happened.
Those are different questions: how often will the disaster occur, and how severe would its consequences be? The argument says the consequences are so catastrophic that building the plants remains unwise despite the low probability.
What we’re looking for
We might want to compare those risks with the benefits. For example, perhaps the plants could replace a great deal of coal-generated power. But the question is asking us to match the reasoning, not complete a policy debate. The matching argument should accept a small risk and still reject the activity because the possible harm is extreme.
Working the answers
- A
This challenges the supposedly low risk. A small number of accidents may look reassuring until we notice that very few people climb mountains. Imagine one accident among ten climbers: 'only one accident' would not mean the risk is tiny. Our author, by contrast, accepts that a meltdown's probability really is very small and argues from the severity of its consequences.
- B
This moves from the limited effect of doing something once to the accumulated benefit of doing it repeatedly. Eating vegetables corresponds to an activity, but there is no unlikely catastrophe being used to reject it. The conclusion recommends the activity for its long-term benefits.
- C
This accepts the low risk and rejects the activity, so it is close. But its stated reason is that the rewards are small. The nuclear argument emphasizes the enormous potential harm, without claiming that nuclear power offers little benefit. A small reward and a catastrophic cost are different bases for the recommendation.
- DCorrect
Bungee jumping corresponds to building nuclear plants; the low risk of injury corresponds to the low chance of a meltdown. The extreme injuries correspond to the catastrophic consequences. Both arguments accept that the bad event is unlikely but reject the activity because that event would be so harmful.
- E
This also accepts a low accident risk, but recommends a precaution because taking it requires so little effort. The reason is the low cost of wearing a seat belt, not the extreme consequences of an accident. To match the original, the stated case against riding without a belt would need to rest on the severity of the possible harm.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.