Editorial: The Government Claims that the Country’s Nuclear GMAT Critical Reasoning

Question: 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 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, the 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?

1. If the government claims that something is unsafe then, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that thing should be assumed to be unsafe.
2. 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.
3. 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 the dependence is not in the best interests of the public.
4. 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.
5. If a real financial threat to a major industry exists, then government action to limit that threat is justified.

Editorial: The Government Claims that the Country’s Nuclear Power Plants are Entirely Safe – is a GMAT critical reasoning topic. This GMAT Critical Reasoning topic has been taken from the book ‘Kaplan LSAT Premier 2016-2017 with Real Practice Questions’. In this particular topic, candidates are asked to select the most appropriate principle that justifies the argument. In this ‘Analyse the Argument’ question, the candidates need to provide an option that supports the argument provided in the passage. GMAT critical reasoning tests the logical and analytical skills of the candidates. Critical reasoning in GMAT requires candidates to find the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, or find the logical flaw in the argument.  The GMAT CR section contains 10 -13 GMAT critical reasoning questions out of 36 GMAT verbal questions.

Answer: D
Explanation:

If this is a GMAT critical reasoning question, we have to select the option that helps to justify the editorial’s arguments.

Let’s go through each option and choose the one that is the most suitable for the arguments.

Option 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 be unsafe.

This states that if the government is saying that something is unsafe, then if there is no strong evidence, that thing must be considered unsafe. This statement does not help us in resolving the confusing arguments that the government is making in the passage. The government claims that its decision to financially protect the nuclear industries is appreciable and also says that in case any accident happens due to these industries, then only the injury claims can be sustained. The statement does not says anything to support the argument. So, Option A is incorrect.

Option 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.

According to this option, the fear that a particular event will take place is well founded for those people who are in control of such occurrences of events that will financially benefit them. The argument does not say anything about the financial benefits that certain group of people will get from the events. So, Option B is incorrect.

Option 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 the dependence is not in the best interests of the public.

The above option states that a dangerous thing is safe because the financial stability of the people responsible for its operation depends on the thing being safe and it is dangerous to eliminate this dependence. This statement is leading to nowhere as it does not justify the claims that the government is making. So, Option C is incorrect.

Option 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.

It states that sometimes the government makes claims about what kind of situation will arise but does nothing to prevent it unless there is a real danger that such events will occur. On one hand. The government is justifying its claims and on the other hand, saying that nuclear accidents may occur, thus confirming the public’s fears. Such duality in the government’s claims proves the editorial’s argumentation correct. So, Option D is correct.

Option E: If a real financial threat to a major industry exists, then government action to limit that threat is justified.

As per Option E, in case a real financial threat to any major industry exists, the government can take action to limit that threat. This statement does not support the editorial’s argument as it is not relevant to the public’s fear of nuclear accidents. So, Option E is incorrect.

Suggested GMAT Critical Reasoning samples

• The Year After a Company Whose Success Depends on Product Innovation has a Profitable Year
• Research has Shown that Impoverished People in this Country Buy Unhealthy Snack Foods
• It is Illogical to Infer a Second and Different Effect from a Cause which is known only by one Particular Effect.
• In Anticipation of the Coming Year, Tecumseh Autos, a National Auto Manufacturer, is Anticipating Sales of its Vehicles.
• Discussion of Greenhouse Effects Have Usually Had as a Focus the Possibility of Earth Growing Warmer
• In One Study, Hospital Patients' Immune Systems Grew Stronger When the Patients Viewed Comic Videos
• Between 1980 and 2000 the Sea Otter Population of the Aleutian Islands Declined Precipitously.
• Demographic Experts Predict that the Global Human Population will Reach its Peak Sometime in the Middle of this Century
• If Martin Introduces an Amendment to Evans’s Bill, then Johnson and Lloyd will Both Vote the Same Way
• A New Medication for Migraine Seems Effective, But There is Concern That The Medication Might Exacerbate Heart Disease
• During a Recent Excavation, Fragments of a Ceremonial Urn Dating Back
• Literary Critics are Concerned by a Recent Trend in Book Publishing.
• On Most Side Streets in the United States, the Speed Limit
• According To a Survey of Graduating Medical Students Conducted by Association of American Medical College
• A Fundamental Principle of Pharmacology is that all Drugs have Multiple Actions. Actions that are Desirable in the Treatment of Disease are Considered therapeutic
• Because they can Craft Objects of a New Design Without having Extrusion Fittings Custom-Designed for that Purpose
• Heavy Commitment by an Executive to a Course of Action
• Doctors in Britain Have Long Suspected That Patients Who Wear Tinted Eyeglasses are Abnormally Prone to Depression and Hypochondria
• Modern Navigation Systems, Which are Found in Most of Today’s Commerce
• Johnson is on Firm Ground When he Asserts that the Early Editors of Dickinsons Poetry Often Distorted her Intentions