The initial causes of serious accidents at nuclear power plants have not so far been flaws in the advanced-technology portion of the plants. Rather, the initial causes have been attributed to human error, as when a worker at the Browns Mills reactor in the United States dropped a candle and started a fire, or to flaws in the plumbing, exemplified in a recent incident in Japan. Such everyday events cannot be thought unlikely to occur over the long run.
Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above?
(A) Now that nuclear power generation has become a part of everyday life, an
ever-increasing yearly incidence of serious accidents at the plants can be expected. - WRONG. The ever-increasing part goes ballistic in its claim that can't be supported by the passage.
(B) If nuclear power plants continue in operation,
a serious accident at such a plant is not improbable. - CORRECT. Reasonable enough.
(C) The likelihood of human error at the operating consoles of nuclear power generators
cannot be lessened by thoughtful design of dials, switches, and displays. - WRONG. Though might be right but passage does not mentions any of this.
(D) The design of nuclear power plants attempts to
compensate for possible failures of the materials used in their construction. - WRONG. Like C only.
(E)
No serious accident will be caused in the future by some flaw in the advanced-technology portion of a nuclear power plant. - WRONG. Situation reversal need not be true.
Answer B.