Antinuclear activist: The closing of the nuclear power plant is a vict

Question

Antinuclear activist: The closing of the nuclear power plant is a victory for the antinuclear cause. It also represents a belated acknowledgment by the power industry that they cannot operate such plants safely.

Nuclear power plant manager: It represents no such thing. The availability of cheap power from nonnuclear sources, together with the cost of mandated safety inspections and safety repairs, made continued operation uneconomic. Thus it was not safety considerations but economic considerations that dictated the plant’s closing.

The reasoning in the manager’s argument is flawed because the argument

(A) fails to acknowledge that the power industry might now believe nuclear power plants to be unsafe even though this plant was not closed for safety reasons

(B) overlooks the possibility that the sources from which cheap power is available might themselves be subject to safety concerns

(C) mistakes the issue of what the closure of the plant represents to the public for the issue of what the managers’ reason for the closure were

(D) takes as one of its premises a view about the power industry’s attitude toward nuclear safety that contradicts the activist’s view

(E) counts as purely economic considerations some expenses that arise as a result of the need to take safety precautions

stne · Answer

The nuclear plant manager wants to show that it was not safety but economic considerations. But fails to recognize that certain safety measures required expenses, hence the plant was not closed purely of economic considerations rather there were safety considerations too. Those safety measures,if implemented might have been a very huge expense.Hence it was thought more feasible to close the plant.Hence the Anti Nuclear activist was correct for his safety point of view.

(A) fails to acknowledge that the power industry might now believe nuclear power plants to be unsafe even though this plant was not closed for safety reasons .  Not true .INCORRECT.

(B) overlooks the possibility that the sources from which cheap power is available might themselves be subject to safety concerns. Not true .INCORRECT.

(C)mistakes the issue of what the closure of the plant represents to the public for the issue of what the managers’ reason for the closure were. Not true.INCORRECT.

(D)takes as one of its premises a view about the power industry’s attitude toward nuclear safety that contradicts the activist’s view. Not true .INCORRECT.

(E) counts as purely economic considerations some expenses that arise as a result of the need to take safety precautions. Most accurate.CORRECT.

Ans- E

Hope it's clear.

srishti784 · Answer

I get why E is correct
But why is C rejected?
The manager is treating the reason for closure (economic) as if it settles the question of what the closure “represents”.
But the activist is talking about the meaning or symbolism of the closure (public acknowledgment of safety issues), not just the literal financial reasons.

So, the flaw is a mistaken shift in the issue — confusing what the closure represents vs. why it happened.

Rickooreoisb · Answer

KarishmaB ,

Need your help on the below

Activist’s claim: Closing the nuclear plant is a victory and shows the industry admits plants cannot be operated safely.

Manager’s reply: Wrong — the closing wasn’t about safety at all, but about cheap nonnuclear alternatives and costs of safety inspections/repairs. Thus the decision was economic, not safety-based.

Logical flaw:

The activist’s statement is about what the closing represents (a broader acknowledgment about safety).

The manager rebuts by explaining the cause of closure (economic reasons).

That’s a shift in issue: representation vs. motive.

(C) “mistakes the issue of what the closure of the plant represents to the public for the issue of what the managers’ reason for the closure were.”

Exactly the flaw: the activist said “what the closure represents (acknowledgment of safety risk),” the manager said “what the closure was caused by (economic factors).” That’s a different issue.

kanugulasriyash · Answer

Hello, my take on the above would be that the manager is expressing the closure of the plant in purely economic terms but the fact that the economics are unfavorable due to safety inspections implies that the safety is playing a role in the plant closure.

Raghunandan19 · Answer

Bunuel  can you help explain why its E and not C?

KarishmaB · Answer

Antinuclear activist: The closing of the plant shows that power industry has accepted that they cannot operate such plants safely. (that is why they are closing the plant) Nuclear power plant manager: It represents no such thing. They are closing the plant because of money. (Conclusion) Premises: Other sources are cheaper. Safety of nuclear plant requires heavy expense. Here is the flaw - The manager says that ensuring safety of power plants is expensive. He is calling it a pure economic factor. But the point is that safety is tricky that is why it is expensive. So you can't say that it is a purely monetary factor. (E) counts as purely economic considerations some expenses that arise as a result of the need to take safety precautions Points out the flaw. Correct. (A) fails to acknowledge that the power industry might now believe nuclear power plants to be unsafe even though this plant was not closed for safety reasons The manager is focusing only on what this plant's closing shows. (B) overlooks the possibility that the sources from which cheap power is available might themselves be subject to safety concerns Irrelevant. Other sources are cheaper, irrespective of what safety concerns they are subject to. (C) mistakes the issue of what the closure of the plant represents to the public for the issue of what the managers’ reason for the closure were This is a trick option meant to confuse you by using the exact words picked from the argument. You may pick this option if you are word-matching to get the answer. You have to use logic. The issue being discussed is the same - why this plant was closed. When the activist says that the closure shows that the power industry has acknowledged that safety is a big concern, he means to say that that is why this plant was closed - because safety is a big concern. The manager gives an alternative reason for why the plant was closed. He does not mistake the issue. His fault lies in projecting safety cost as only an economic factor. That is why this option is not correct. (D) takes as one of its premises a view about the power industry’s attitude toward nuclear safety that contradicts the activist’s view Nothing wrong in the premises he takes. He only gives facts, not views of anyone. The only view he gives is his own i.e. conclusion (It represents no such thing.) So ignore. Answer (E) Here is a video discussing flaw in reasoning questions: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8

Antinuclear activist: The closing of the nuclear power plant is a vict

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Antinuclear activist: The closing of the nuclear power plant is a vict

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards