« on: February 05, 2008, 07:48:10 AM »
Section 1: #22
Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear
power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's
fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless.
The government also contends that its recent action to
limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case
of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the
need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of
bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited
liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be
sustained against the industry; and the government
admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must
result from a nuclear accident. The public's fear,
therefore, is well founded.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most
helps to justify the editorial's argumentation?
(A) If the government claims that something is unsafe
then, in the absence of overwhelming evidence
to the contrary, that thing should be assumed to
(B) Fear that a certain kind of event will occur is well
founded if those who have control over the
occurrence of events of that kind stand to benefit
financially from such an occurrence.
(C) If a potentially dangerous thing is safe only
because the financial security of those
responsible for its operation depends on its being
safe, then eliminating that dependence is not in
the best interests of the public.
(D) The government sometimes makes unsupported
claims about what situations will arise, but it
does not act to prevent a certain kind of situation
from arising unless there is a real danger that
such a situation will arise.
(E) If a real financial threat to a major injury exists,
then government action to limit that threat is
I got really hung up on wording with this one and stupidly chose (B) because it addressed the specific wording of the conclusion: "fear....is well founded..." Can someone try and explain the reasoning here and how to arrive at the CR?
Section 4: #13
Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of
sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the
atmosphere by using a new process. This new process
requires replacing our open furnaces with closed ones
and moving the copper from one furnace to the next in
solid, not molten, form. However, not only is the new
equipment expensive to buy and install, but the new
process also costs more to run than the current process,
because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled.
So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but
bring the company no profit.
Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but
I disagree about one point you make, since the latest
closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.
The point about which the supervisor expresses
disagreement with the plant manager is
(B) whether the new copper-smelting process is more
expensive to run than the current process
(E) whether cooling and reheating the copper will
cost more than moving it in molten form
It came down to (B) and (E) for me. I selected (E) thinking that both speakers would probably have agreed with statement (B). I guess I don't really understand how the supervisor could believe that the new process is NOT more expensive than the old process, yet also admit that "adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit."
Thanks for your help!