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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0%
(00:00)
correct 100%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 3
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the editorial’s argumentation?
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.
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.
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.
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.
E. If a real financial threat to a major industry exists, then government action to limit that threat is justified.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
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.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the editorial’s argumentation?
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.
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.
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.
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.
E. If a real financial threat to a major industry exists, then government action to limit that threat is justified.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.