The state of Hawaii plans to build a nuclear power plant in a town alo

Question

The state of Hawaii plans to build a nuclear power plant in a town along the leeward coast of Oahu. The nuclear power plant is expected to provide new jobs for people in Oahu. The town in which the power plant will be located, however, is unhappy with the plan. A spokesperson for the town reveals to the local news station that the residents are concerned about the dangers of nuclear power, as well as the potential for another accident of the magnitude of the Chernobyl disaster. As the spokesperson notes, Chernobyl was the nuclear power plant in Ukraine where a reactor exploded in 1986, creating extremely unsafe levels of radiation for residents throughout Ukraine and parts of Eastern Europe. The long-term effects of the Chernobyl explosion included permanent health damage for many residents and a variety of birth defects among children. These possible consequences are what the Hawaiian town residents most fear, in the event that a nuclear facility in Hawaii suffers a similar accident.

Which of the following most undermines the spokesperson’s primary argument?

(A) The nuclear fallout that occurred at Chernobyl was a one-time historical event, and it cannot be assumed a similar event would occur in Hawaii.

(B) The spokesperson is a paid member of an anti-nuclear power organization that frequently lobbies against the building of new nuclear power plants in the U.S.

(C) The advances made in nuclear power plants since the days of Chernobyl ensure that the chance of a similar nuclear explosion is almost nonexistent.

(D) The nuclear power plant will bring high-paying jobs to the community and ensure excellent benefits for all employees.

(E) The voters of the state of Hawaii have voted overwhelmingly in support of the building of the nuclear power plant.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Overview:

Questions discusses plans by the state of Hawaii to build a nuclear power plant in a town on the leeward coast of Oahu. The townspeople are not happy with this plan and have acquired a spokesperson to explain their concerns about the intended facility. According to the spokesperson, the town’s primary fear is that the new nuclear power plant will create another incident like the Chernobyl disaster; the spokesperson cites details of that disaster, including its long-term effects. Question asks for the answer choice that most undermines the spokesperson’s claims. To answer the question, the student should begin by noting the main point of the spokesperson’s argument: the people of the town are opposed to the building of the nuclear power plant because they fear an explosion like the one that happened at Chernobyl.

The Correct Answer:

C Answer choice (C) explains the problem with the spokesperson’s argument. In a discussion of an event that occurred over two decades before, the spokesperson fails to consider whether technology has improved since then (particularly in light of the reasonable assumption that since the events at Chernobyl, nuclear engineers would be motivated to ensure that such an accident would not happen again). Because answer choice (C) states specifically that current nuclear power plants are designed to prevent similar accidents, answer choice (C) is correct.

The Incorrect Answers:

A Answer choice (A) approaches a part of the problem in the spokesperson’s argument, but it does not undermine it completely. This answer choice suggests that the fears of the people in the town are not justified, but offers only a vague claim that they cannot be applied. Without further information to explain why they cannot be applied (such as the correct answer choice provides), this is simply not enough to undermine the argument effectively. Answer choice (A), therefore, is incorrect.

B The role of the spokesperson as a paid lobbyist against nuclear power might motivate him to speak on the town’s behalf, but this does not necessarily undermine his argument in any way. If anything, it simply explains why he was hired. Answer choice (B) is incorrect.

D, E Although answer choices (D) and (E) offer explanations for why there should be support for the intended nuclear power plant, they both fail to offer a clear statement that undermines the argument of the spokesperson. In fact, both answer choices (D) and (E) essentially create red herrings (that is, change the subject) by diverting the spokesperson’s argument in a different direction and thus failing to address the substance of the argument. Therefore, answer choices (D) and (E) are incorrect.

NawalDwivedi · Answer

Confused between B and C.
C looks more promising because its negates any chances of incidents similar to one that took place in Chernobyl. 
To eliminate B we can say that maybe the spokesperson's concerns are valid even if he represents an organization that opposes construction of new nuclear power plants. The word "paid" is kind of tempting but the spokesperson is getting paid for his job.

Rajajik9 · Answer

C is more pleasing because to undermine the primary purpose(which is harms, effects and concerns of citizens), All are well undermined if we look at C, whereas B can undermine harms and effects but it can't possibly be related to concerns that people have.

saarthakkhanna04 · Answer

C is the correct answer. It actually defeats the primary argument raised by the spokesperson. B is also a tempting option it will caste a doubt over here opinion but it does necessarily undermine her opinion.

IanStewart · Answer

The question asks this:

but the "official explanation" says this:

So the "official explanation" is not even addressing itself to the question that was asked ("claims" are not the same thing as an "argument"). The spokesperson doesn't make an argument at all; the spokesperson just explains that residents are concerned about a nuclear disaster. So I don't know how any answer could undermine an "argument" that doesn't exist. If instead, as the "official explanation" incorrectly claims, we're trying to undermine the spokesperson's "claims", then we're trying to undermine the claim that  residents are concerned  about nuclear disaster. We could only undermine that if we learned about what residents are concerned about.

So both the question and explanation are fundamentally flawed. The question means to ask "which of the following, if true, suggests that the residents' concerns are unfounded?" Then the answer is C. But questions like this are counterproductive to study, because they're so imprecise in the way they use logical language and concepts. To do well in real GMAT CR, it's important to develop a precise way of thinking about these things, and questions like this one encourage people to think in a very nebulous way.

Shubham2599jain · Answer

Point E directly contradicts "The town in which the power plant will be located, however, is unhappy with the plan." How do you deny that point?

egmat · Answer

The Spokesperson's Argument: 
 
 Conclusion: The nuclear plant is  DANGEROUS  
 Evidence: Chernobyl exploded → radiation → health damage → birth defects 
 Fear: Same thing could happen in Hawaii

Your Confusion:  You noticed (E) seems to contradict "the town is unhappy." But this fails for  two reasons :

Reason #1: You Can't Contradict Premises 
 "The town is unhappy" is a  stated fact . We must accept it as true.
Even with (E), both can be true:
 
 The STATE of Hawaii supports it (larger population) 
 This specific TOWN is still unhappy  
No contradiction.

Reason #2: Popularity ≠ Safety 
 The spokesperson argues the plant is  DANGEROUS -  not that it's unpopular.
(E) tells us: People voted for it Does this make it  less likely to explode?  No. Does this reduce  health risks?  No.
A million votes don't prevent nuclear accidents.

Why (C) Works: 
 (C) says: Modern advances make similar explosions  "almost nonexistent" 
This  directly attacks  the danger claim. If explosions can't happen, the spokesperson's entire argument collapses.

Core CR Principle:  Identify what the argument is actually ABOUT. The spokesperson argues  danger , not  popularity . Weakeners must attack the actual conclusion - not tangentially related details.

The state of Hawaii plans to build a nuclear power plant in a town alo

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

The state of Hawaii plans to build a nuclear power plant in a town alo

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