GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Oct 2019, 01:53

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 313
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 10 Jul 2019, 07:52
6
27
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

54% (02:32) correct 46% (02:54) wrong based on 1078 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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 nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

If all the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false.
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

Originally posted by joshnsit on 07 Jul 2012, 17:57.
Last edited by gmat1393 on 10 Jul 2019, 07:52, edited 2 times in total.
Adding OA
Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 26
Location: Venezuela
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.07
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2012, 19:37
4
1
I beg to differ!
The correct answer choice is B.

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false. To strong to claim that its claim is false. INCORRECT
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent. The government is certainly being inconsistent in its position. First it says that public's concern is groundless and then it makes a claim about liability and its threat, concluding that public's concern is well founded. CORRECT!
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability. Irrelevant. INCORRECT
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry. This cannot be deduced from the argument. It contradicts the argument. INCORRECT
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry. Public worried about safety, not financial security. INCORRECT
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 157
Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2014, 06:49
4
joshnsit wrote:
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 nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

If all the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false.
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

Pls explain..... I know OA but reveal l8r



To understand why B is correct we have to understand why the author makes a conclusion that the peoples fear are well founded.
The first part of the passage states that the Govt has told people that they need not fear nuclear accidents as the nuclear power plants are absolutely safe.
In the second part of the passage , the Govt states that it has provided protection to the nuclear power companies in case of liability because these organizations might fall into bankruptcy in case of nuclear accidents and if the injury caused to people is a result of this nuclear accident.
Hence the govt is on one side telling that they need not fear any nuclear accident and on the second hand telling the people that this financial security is provided in case of any nuclear accident.
Hence its position is inconsistent.
_________________
Kudos me if you like my post !!!!
Retired Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 425
GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2013, 05:44
3
2
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 513
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2012, 01:36
1
joshnsit wrote:
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 nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

If all the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false.
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

Pls explain..... I know OA but reveal l8r

Scope of the argument:
G: NCP (nuclear power plant) is safe => fear at these plant is grounless
G: Recent actions to limit the N's industry financial liability in case the nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of bankruptcy
G: 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 nuclear accident.

The boldface shows the choice D is the most sustainable choice.

Choice E is totally wrong because of the extreme word "only"
_________________
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 313
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2012, 06:27
1
santivilla wrote:
I beg to differ!
The correct answer choice is B.

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false. To strong to claim that its claim is false. INCORRECT
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent. The government is certainly being inconsistent in its position. First it says that public's concern is groundless and then it makes a claim about liability and its threat, concluding that public's concern is well founded. CORRECT!
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability. Irrelevant. INCORRECT
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry. This cannot be deduced from the argument. It contradicts the argument. INCORRECT
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry. Public worried about safety, not financial security. INCORRECT

Nice explanation. Thanks for reinforcing my thoughts. +1 Kudos :-D

B is OA here.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 89
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2012, 07:43
D; according to me that's the only statement that can be inferred based on the information given
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 313
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2012, 15:16
pavanpuneet wrote:
D; according to me that's the only statement that can be inferred based on the information given


But, from the argument, we have a limiting factor, which government has said to be a threat, though in a singular case(if injury claims can be sustained against the industry):
Quote:
its recent action to limitthe 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.
Board of Directors
User avatar
D
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3405
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jul 2012, 02:07
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 nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

If all the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false.
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

B is the only choice that makes sense.

Theother are wrong, without think so much. Not so tough
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 222
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jul 2012, 06:42
A. The government’s claim about the safety of the country’s nuclear power plants is false.
Maybe the claim is true, and the government has other reasons to limit liability.
B. The government’s position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent
Whatever the explanation might be, the government is certainly being inconsistent in its position. Correct
C. The government misrepresented its reason for acting to limit the nuclear industry’s liability
The reason could be valid, maybe the claim about the safety of nuclear plants is unfounded.
D. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country’s nuclear industry
Cannot deduce this from the above passage.
E. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry
Cannot deduce this from the passage.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 96
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2014, 01:00
joshnsit wrote:
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 nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

If all the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false.
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

Pls explain..... I know OA but reveal l8r


------> "the country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe" is inconsistent with "for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from nuclear accident". Hence B

Kudos.. If u like :)
_________________
Impossibility is a relative concept!!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 134
Location: Canada
Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2014, 20:50
santivilla wrote:
I beg to differ!
The correct answer choice is B.

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false. To strong to claim that its claim is false. INCORRECT
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent. The government is certainly being inconsistent in its position. First it says that public's concern is groundless and then it makes a claim about liability and its threat, concluding that public's concern is well founded. CORRECT!
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability. Irrelevant. INCORRECT
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry. This cannot be deduced from the argument. It contradicts the argument. INCORRECT
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry. Public worried about safety, not financial security. INCORRECT


Government claims that people's fear is groundless. The Editorial claims that the claim is well founded. so how is government inconsistent?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Posts: 33
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2014, 02:24
I understand that B is correct but I don't understand why A is wrong. Please explain what's wrong with A. Thank you.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Mar 2015
Posts: 16
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2015, 03:24
joshnsit wrote:
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 nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

If all the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false.
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

Pls explain..... I know OA but reveal l8r


Prephrase –
1. Govt. Claims – nuclear plan = ENTIRELY safe. Public Fear is groundless.
2. Govt. Limited financial liability of Nuclear industry (NI) to protect NI.
3. Unlimited liability = threat only in case of accidents.
4. Hence, public fear is well founded.
Govt. Is inconsistent about its position.

A – claim is false – too stretch.
B – correct answer
C – misrepresented – there is no evidence
D – unlimited liability is a threat to NI as stated in question. (see prephrase point 3)
E – ‘Only’ restricts the scope. Wrong answer.


Kudos please!
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 1
Concentration: General Management
WE: Information Technology (Other)
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2015, 21:02
akhil911 wrote:
joshnsit wrote:
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 nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

If all the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false.
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

Pls explain..... I know OA but reveal l8r



To understand why B is correct we have to understand why the author makes a conclusion that the peoples fear are well founded.
The first part of the passage states that the Govt has told people that they need not fear nuclear accidents as the nuclear power plants are absolutely safe.
In the second part of the passage , the Govt states that it has provided protection to the nuclear power companies in case of liability because these organizations might fall into bankruptcy in case of nuclear accidents and if the injury caused to people is a result of this nuclear accident.
Hence the govt is on one side telling that they need not fear any nuclear accident and on the second hand telling the people that this financial security is provided in case of any nuclear accident.
Hence its position is inconsistent.



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 nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

These bold faces segment forced me to select A, which I know is a strong statement but word "entirely" seems to be a strong word as well. Thus i believe A is quiet close.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 33
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2016, 02:06
joshnsit wrote:
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 nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

If all the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false.
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

Pls explain..... I know OA but reveal l8r


a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant is false.
It's not about the safety but about the liability that the nuclear plant might owe to the public in case of a nuclear accident.

b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
This is the correct answer. It is pretty clear that the two positions that the government maintains is not consistent with each other. If there is liability, the recent action limits the liability and at the same time, the liability claims are sustained only in the event of a nuclear liability.

c. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
There is no such thing being talked about.

d. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
Financial liability is only limited. What the limit is is not being talked about explicitly. So, it may pose some threat to the financial security.

e. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.
Again the word 'only' is going too far.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Status: GMAT Coach
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 141
Location: Peru
GPA: 3.98
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2016, 08:19
mneeti wrote:
I understand that B is correct but I don't understand why A is wrong. Please explain what's wrong with A. Thank you.



a. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plant could be true.
b. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent. The inconsistency is shown in this two claims:
power plants are entirely safe
unlimited liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be sustained and for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from nuclear accident.

c. There may be the possibility that the government did not misrepresent its reason.
d. Opposite. The reason is to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of bankruptcy.
e.” only” is too extreme. It is not justified.

Answer is B
_________________
Clipper Ledgard
GMAT Coach
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Mar 2018
Posts: 45
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Apr 2018, 07:32
The answer is B.

We know that EITHER the plants are not safe and could have an accident, OR that the limited liability standard the government imposed is not necessary. These cannot be mutually true based on the premises given, but since we cannot establish which one is false it follows that the argument is inconsistent
LBS Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Posts: 649
Location: Germany
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q47 V44
GPA: 3.4
WE: Analyst (Transportation)
Reviews Badge
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jun 2019, 03:50
The government's position is inconsistent for the following reasons:

Claim A: The nuclear facilities are so safe that there is no risk of a nuclear accident.
Claim B: A nuclear accident would likely bankrupt the countries nuclear industry if the government would not limit the industries liability.

These statement conflict with each other as there would be no need for Claim/Action B if the position on A would be consistently argued as a reason not to limit liability.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Chris
_________________
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear   [#permalink] 08 Jun 2019, 03:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne