Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in “geologically quietâ€

I was debating between (C) and (E).

I think it is (C)

"E"

I think E is already stated in passage as a premise. it should be C.
_________________

When u r about to make ends meet, someone moves the ends.

Chunjuwu,

Could you please post the OA ?

Cheers,
Paddy.

[quote="chunjuwu"]Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in “geologically quietâ€

Premises:
1) Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in geologically quiet regions
2) Geologically quiet regions are distant from plate boundaries and contain only minor faults
3) No minor fault in a geologically quiet region produces an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000 yr period

Conclusion:
4) Of all potential nuclear reactor sites in a geologically quiet region, those that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory

We need an assumption to suggests why the nuclear plant is least likely to be struck by an earthquake if located near a fault.


(A) Geologically quiet regions are the least dangerous regions in which to build nuclear reactors.
- Out. Does not hold up the conclusion.

(B) For any potential nuclear reactor site the likelihood of being struck by an earthquake is the primary determinant of site safety.
- Does not suggest why siting a nuclear plant near a minor fault is safe

(C) In a geologically quiet region every potential nuclear reactor site is near at least one minor fault.
- Does not suggest why it's safe to do so.

(D) Nuclear reactors that are located in geologically quiet regions are built to withstand at least one but not necessarily more than one earthquake of minor to moderate force.
- out of scope

(E) Earthquake faults in geologically quiet regions produce earthquakes at least once in 100,000 years.
- if in living memory there is has been 1 earthquake, then it will be a very long time before the next one comes along. So the conclusion holds.

E it is.

sorry for late.

OA is C

I got the question finally. I try my best to explain, any correctness will be appreciated. Maybe HongHu can correct me. Thanks

The conclusion: the nuclear reactor sites near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory( meaning 100000 years) will be the least likely to struck by an earthquake.

But if some nuclear reactor sites are not near a fault, then there could be no earthquake in these sites. In other words, some nuclear reactor sites will be less likely to struck by an earthquake than the nuclear reactor sites the author said. So, in order to prevent the conclusion from weakening, we must assume all nuclear reactor sites are near fault.

Choice E has been stated in the question,... are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory......

So, it cannot be the assumption.

Any ideas?