PrepTest 156, Section 4, Question 26
Letter to the editor: In calling on antinuclear(75 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AIf other options(20 more words not shown)
- BIt is better(24 more words not shown)
- CIf one is(29 more words not shown)
- DIt is irresponsible(22 more words not shown)
- EIt is dishonest(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why ask opponents of nuclear power to solve a problem with nuclear power? My first reaction is that the advocates should explain how their preferred energy source can deal with its waste. But that reaction doesn't yet establish dishonesty, and ending future nuclear generation wouldn't make existing waste disappear.
The letter makes a more specific objection. The activists want nuclear power ended as soon as possible. Better waste disposal could make nuclear power more acceptable, helping it continue. So the proposed work could move the world away from the activists' goal.
And the advocates are asking them to do it in the name of their own ideals.
What we’re looking for
That is the connection the principle needs to supply. Why is this appeal dishonest? Because it asks people to serve their ideals by doing something that could undermine the goal those ideals support. We need a rule connecting that kind of appeal with dishonesty, rather than a rule deciding whether nuclear power itself is a good idea.
Working the answers
- A
This evaluates whether taking a potentially harmful course of action is irresponsible when alternatives exist. The conclusion concerns whether an appeal to other people's ideals is dishonest. A doesn't connect the appeal, the activists' goals, and dishonesty, so it doesn't justify the letter's reasoning.
- B
This compares eliminating a practice with improving it, which sounds relevant to the policy dispute. But the letter's conclusion isn't simply that elimination is better. It accuses advocates of dishonesty in how they appeal to opponents. We also aren't told that better disposal would fail to reduce harm significantly, as B's condition requires.
- CCorrect
Match each part. The advocates call on activists to help improve waste disposal. That could make nuclear power more acceptable and prolong its use, undermining the activists' goal of ending it quickly. The advocates make the request 'for the sake of' the activists' ideals. C says that this combination makes the appeal dishonest, supplying the connection to the letter's conclusion.
The principle requires only that the requested action could undermine the goal. The letter's prediction that better disposal would probably help nuclear power continue is enough to support that possibility.
- D
This concerns persuading others to accept a practice that the persuader doesn't consider acceptable. But these speakers advocate nuclear power; the argument doesn't establish that they secretly consider it unacceptable. D also concludes irresponsibility, not the dishonesty of the appeal described in the letter.
- E
This reaches dishonesty, so it deserves attention. But it makes failure to reveal conflicting ideals the problem. The letter doesn't say advocates concealed their support for nuclear power. Their position could be entirely open, and the letter's objection would remain: they are appealing to the activists' ideals while requesting work that could undermine the activists' goal.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.