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?
Took me 4:30 minutes 
Editorial points out that
1. Govt claims that
- nuclear plants are entirely safe
- public’s fear of nuclear accidents is groundless
- its recent action to limit the nuclear industry’s financial liability is justified
BUT
- unlimited liability poses such a threat(bankruptcy) ONLY if injury claims can be sustained against the industry(i.e. if accidents happen, unlimited liability would likely lead to bankruptcy, probably because of overwhelming claims);
and
- for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident(i.e. only if nuclear accidents the resultant injuries claims can be sustained i.e. bankruptcy can be avoided)
2. thus public's fear is justified
What editorial doesn't clearly says is whether public is afraid of nuclear accidents or the financial liabilities that may arise in case of accidents or both. However, it looks the fear is of accidents(as per govt) - anyway.
The most important part of the passage is highlighted text. This is bit confusing since, on one side, govt claims to be sure that nuclear plants are safe and its efforts to protect that industry financially is appreciable; however, on the other side, it claims that in case of unfortunate events it may not able to avert bankruptcy with an exception(if we can say that and this leads to confusion) that only if nuclear accidents happen, the injury claims can be sustained.
So, the govt is taking both sides and for the reason(govt's claim of injury claims being sustainable in the event of nuclear accidents), editorial says public's fear is well founded.(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. -
WRONG. It doesn't help us resolve the confusing claims that the govt is making.(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. -
WRONG. Probably right in real world, but not here since financial benefits is not at all is reflected upon.(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. -
WRONG. Just like B, this one also leading to nowhere.
(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. -
CORRECT. On one side govt is acting and justifying it's efforts and on the other side it rejects public's fear but also making room for the very exception(nuclear accidents) that the public fears. Such duality in its claims - a reality in real world also.(E) If a real financial threat to a major industry exists, then government action to limit that threat is justified. -
WRONG. Again no. It's almost like B and C.Let me know if i missed something.
Hope this helps.
Answer D.
close
05 Nov 2021, 11:45
69%
(02:55)
wrong 
