The Fieldpark nuclear power plant, cited three years ago by a

Dear Mike,

While I was reviewing this question in Magoosh, there was something interesting about choice B. It is stated that B is weakner. I heard Chris in his video says the same. However, I do not understand how B can weaken the argument. I hope you can clarify this point.

Thanks for your help.

Dear Mo2men,

I'm happy to respond.

I think to be super-technical, I would say that (B) could be a weakener. It allows for the possibility of a weakener.

Think about it. At the last government inspection, the radiation levels were at N sieverts, for some value of N. We know that N is above the acceptable safety level S, N > S, because that was the finding in the last inspection. Let's say that the level now is T. How does T compare to N & S? Mathematically, there are four basic possibilities.
Case 1: T > N
Case 2: T = N
Case 3: S < T < N
Case 4: T < S
Now, choice (B) explicitly eliminates Case 1--it takes Case 1 off the table, so only Cases 2-4 could be true.

If Case 2 or Case 3 is true, then the level now is still above the safety levels, and the conclusion of the argument is untrue. In these cases, (B) would be a clear weakener.

If Case 4 is true, then (B) would still be consistent with the argument's conclusion. Here, (B) would not be a weakener.

If Case 1 is not true, we have no idea which of the other three cases is true. (B) is a weakener in some cases but not in others.

Now, a few things to keep in mind. We are looking for an assumption, and an assumption has an effect of always strengthening the argument. Something that is sometimes a weakener is never a strengthener, never an assumption. Finding out that that (B) allows for some cases that make it a weakener some of the time is enough to disqualify it as a possible assumption. In that sense, it's a weakener---it's a weakener at least some of the time, and that means it absolutely can't be an assumption. That's what is important in answering this question. A weakener some of the time would not be the correct answer if the question were asking for a weakener.

What we get to call a "weakener" to some extent depends on context. If we are answering a weakener question, the bar is high: something always has to be a weakener to qualify for the correct answer to a weakener question. If we are answering an assumption or strengthener question, then the fact that something is sometimes a weakener is enough to disqualify it. As in many things, the bar for disqualification is lower than the the bar for complete acceptance.

Finally, I will say: imagine this scenario--A reporter says, "The Fieldpark nuclear power plant was cited three years ago by a governmentally led safety commission for exceeding safe levels of radiation. What can you say about the plant's current safety levels?" In response, a Fieldpark PR person say, "The number of sieverts the plant releases has not increased since the last governmental inspection."
That response is a classic PR-person donkey-feathers answer (PS: that expression was an attempt to avoid the use of profanity of GMAT Club!) All your red flag sensors should go off when you hear that response. It simply sounds like a response that is hiding something. Now, do we know, in a cold logical way, that it is hiding something? Technically, no, but it still should activate all your suspicions. That's the kind of statement that (B) is. In addition to the logical analysis, you also should have a gut-level discomfort about what scam it is trying to pull.

In the real world, once you have your MBA, in the business world, you will encounter all kinds of manipulative people who excel at telling you things that, from a purely logical point of view, could be fine, and if you don't have finely honed intuitions about when someone is trying to defraud you, you could suffer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Dear Mike,

I would like to thank you for taking time to write this response. I'm happy that my pre-thinking matches a lot of your response, especially case 2.

All clear now

D is the right answer

Conclusion: citizens of Fieldpark can rest assured that, until next year’s governmental inspection, the facility will not exceed the federal regulations on the amount of sieverts, or radiation, to which a person can be exposed.

Premise: the media has full access to the plant and is not prohibited from taking pictures on the premises.

To sum up, author is basing conclusion (safety of plant) based on permission given to photographers. The argument has to assume that photos present the same credible data or evidence as equivalent to that of a government agency.

The Fieldpark nuclear power plant, cited three years ago by a governmentally led safety commission for exceeding safe levels of radiation, has recently allowed the media access to its facilities. A spokesperson for the plant has claimed that the media has full access to the plant and is not prohibited from taking pictures on the premises. The spokesperson promises that, as a result, the citizens of Fieldpark can rest assured that, until next year’s governmental inspection, the facility will not exceed the federal regulations on the amount of sieverts, or radiation, to which a person can be exposed.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the spokesperson’s conclusion depends?

A) The media will publish all of the photos it deems incriminating..........does not have to be assumed. they can eliminate one or two.
B) The number of sieverts the plant releases has not increased since the last governmental inspection............the no of sieverts may not increase but what if it has been more tahn limit from before. it has been cited as one that exceeded limits in previous inspection.
C) Communities are located close enough to the power plant to be harmed should the plant release more radiation than the regulations allow........OFS
D) Photos can establish with the same reliability what a government safety commission can.........if photographs are not reliable then why call media for taking public confidence in. So D is straightforward answer.
E) There were verifiable cases of radiation sickness in the year before the plant was cited by the safety commission..........does not matter OFS

Why am I not getting the picture here? I interpreted the spokesperson's claim as:

Because people (the media) are allowed to enter the facilities => Conclusion: The radiation level is safe for now

Therefore, the assumption must be something like: Those who entered show no signs of radiation sickness long after leaving the facilities.

Why photographs have anything to do here? The question never mentions that the media INTENDED to check the radiation level by entering the facilities and taking photographs

D

A & D are contenders.

Negating A wont breaks the conclusion. But Neg D breaks the conclusion

What if photos were more reliable?

(i am wondering whether More Reliable is right!)

Official Explanation

Premise #1

The nuclear plant was cited for unsafe levels of radiation.

Premise #2

It has recently allowed the media full access (taking pictures) to its entire facilities.

Conclusion: The nuclear plant is no longer releasing unsafe levels of radiation.

The major assumption here is that the media can accurately assess levels of radiation. It only mentions that the media is taking photos, not that it is capable of conducting sophisticated tests. Therefore, the spokesperson’s argument assumes (D).

(A) Even if a photo is deemed incriminating that is not equivalent to the photo being able to reliably assess levels of radioactivity.

(B) weakens the argument but is not an assumption that the spokesperson makes.

(C) The key is radiation exceeding “federal regulations”. Whether it harms nearby communities is not at issue.

(D) The answer.

(E) supports the first premise. It does not relate to the spokesperson’s argument.

Hi everyone

Context
The Fieldpark nuclear power plant, cited three years ago by a governmentally led safety commission for exceeding safe levels of radiation, has recently allowed the media access to its facilities.

Information used to draw the conclusion
A spokesperson for the plant has claimed that the media has full access to the plant and is not prohibited from taking pictures on the premises.

Conclusion
The spokesperson promises that, as a result, the citizens of Fieldpark can rest assured that, until next year’s governmental inspection, the facility will not exceed the federal regulations on the amount of sieverts, or radiation, to which a person can be exposed.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the spokesperson’s conclusion depends?

Pre-thinking:
The logical gap is between the fact that media can take picture and that citizens can rest assured because of those picture.

But what if those pictures can not capture unsafe levels of radiations.
In this scenario the argument breaks.
So the pre-thought assumption is that what journalists are going to show to citizens not only is accurate but also shows that everything is fine

A) The media will publish all of the photos it deems incriminating.
Too extreme because the usage of "all"

B) The number of sieverts the plant releases has not increased since the last governmental inspection.
The question is: has it increased enough to be unsafe or not? no impact

C) Communities are located close enough to the power plant to be harmed should the plant release more radiation than the
regulations allow.
irrelevant

D) Photos can establish with the same reliability what a government safety commission can.
Correct

E) There were verifiable cases of radiation sickness in the year before the plant was cited by the safety commission.
irrelevant

mikemcgarry I have a question here. And even though I have checked the magoosh official explanation video, I am still not 100% convinced.

Context
The Fieldpark nuclear power plant, cited three years ago by a governmentally led safety commission for exceeding safe levels of radiation, has recently allowed the media access to its facilities.

Information used to draw the conclusion
A spokesperson for the plant has claimed that the media has full access to the plant and is not prohibited from taking pictures on the premises.

Conclusion
The spokesperson promises that, as a result, the citizens of Fieldpark can rest assured that, until next year’s governmental inspection, the facility will not exceed the federal regulations on the amount of sieverts, or radiation, to which a person can be exposed.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the spokesperson’s conclusion depends?

Pre-thinking:
The logical gap is between the fact that media can take picture and that citizens can rest assured because of those picture.

My question:
To let option D be the correct answer, we also have to assume before hand that currently the radiation level is safe in the plant.

Otherwise, the highlighted part of the mentioned conclusion is not holding meaning for me-
The spokesperson promises that, as a result, the citizens of Fieldpark can rest assured that, until next year’s governmental inspection, the facility will not exceed the federal regulations on the amount of sieverts, or radiation, to which a person can be exposed.

Please explain.

Photos can establish with the same reliability what a government safety commission can.

Can anyone explain what does it mean in a simple way?
TIA

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.