Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear

Question

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.

santivilla · Accepted Answer

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

dentobizz · Answer

Bumping for Review and Discussion**
New Gmat club Project Click here

Theory on Must be true/Inference Questions

E-gmat
inference-vs-assumption-146758.html?hilit=MUST%20BE%20TRUE/%20INFERENCE

Kaplan
https://gmat.kaptest.com/2012/07/11/gmat ... niFDi.dpbs

Veritasprep
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2012/12 ... questions/

Knewton
https://www.knewton.com/blog/inference-3/

Mangoosh Gmat
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-criti ... inference/

Manhattan Gmat
https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... e-problem/

Vimeo videos

Thrusdays with Ron

pavanpuneet · Answer

D; according to me that's the only statement that can be inferred based on the information given

joshnsit · Answer

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 ):

tuanquang269 · Answer

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"

Carcass · Answer

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

rohitgoel15 · Answer

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.

joshnsit · Answer

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

B is OA here.

sagarsir · Answer

------> "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

akhil911 · Answer

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.

gauravkaushik8591 · Answer

Government claims that people's fear is groundless. The Editorial claims that the claim is well founded. so how is government inconsistent?

mneeti · Answer

I understand that B is correct but I don't understand why A is wrong. Please explain what's wrong with A. Thank you.

neutronstar · Answer

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!

GM1608 · Answer

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.

nrmlvrm · Answer

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.

cledgard · Answer

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

lostnumber · Answer

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

Arro44 · Answer

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

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear

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

Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear

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