Q13 - Proponents of nuclear power

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Unwise to build nuclear power plants.
Evidence: Although chances of a meltdown are small, the consequences of a meltdown are catastrophic.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument doesn't contain conditional or quantified logic, so it's probably better to go with a conversational "moral to the story". The author seems to be saying, "It's not worth risking something catastrophically bad happening, even if the risk is very small". In terms of using "The Conclusion Shortcut", we can look for a conclusion that sounds evaluative (e.g. we shouldn't do this).

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This conclusion is just descriptive. So it's probably not worth reading the rest on a first pass. And the fact that is uses the word "risk" (used in the original) could be a Language Trap.

(B) This conclusion says we SHOULD do something. That's not going to match easily.

(C) This, like (A), has a descriptive conclusion. The original conclusion didn't just quantify risk; it made a judgment on whether it was TOO risky.

(D) Yes! "It is reckless to engage in that activity" is a strong Conclusion match for "it would be unwise to build this". And again the author is saying "it's not worth risking something terrible happening, even if the risk is small."

(E) Tempting. The conclusion matches, although in a Language Trap way (it recycles "still unwise"). This argument is saying you SHOULD do something to prevent risk, because even though the risk is small the effort involved is also small.

Takeaway/Pattern: When Match the Reasoning contains conditional/quantified logic, it's helpful to diagram with abstract symbols. When it doesn't, it's usually easier to try to sum up "the moral to the story" or "the general principle the author is using".

#officialexplanation

[LSATeater]

This is a parallel reasoning question. We need to pick the answer which best exhibits the same sort of reasoning used in the stimulus.

The stimulus states that proponents of nuclear power claim that the chance of a meltdown is extremely small because the technology is so sophisticated. (Presumably, technological sophistication is a good indicator of meltdown risk.) The author concedes that this point is, in fact, accurate and that meltdown is quite unlikely. However, the author argues, building nuclear power plants on the basis of small meltdown risk would still be unwise. Why? Because if a meltdown does occur (however unlikely it may be) the damage would be catastrophic.

The answer to this question will use a similar pattern in which a probabilistic point which apparently supports one mode of action will be conceded but the action will be judged, nonetheless, to be unwise because of what awful consequences may occur if that small probability manifests.

Choice (D) mimics this reasoning to a tee by saying that though bungee jumping is not likely to lead to serious injury, if a serious injury does occur because of bungee jumping then that injury would be so devastating that we should avoid bungee jumping altogether to totally eliminate that possibility.

Other choices:
(A) wrong because it does not concede any point. Also wrong because it does not have any explicit recommendation about mountain climbing.
(B) wrong because it's reasoning does not appeal to risk and probability
(C) almost right but the last part makes it wrong. We are concerned with what awful thing might happen if that small risk of fatal mishap is realized. We do not care about lack of benefits so much as we do about amount of suffering/devastation/negative consequences.
(E) again, almost right but the last part makes it wrong. We are not concerned about the minimal effort of putting on a seat belt. We are concerned about the steep costs of not having a seat belt on when a traffic accident occurs and we are involved.

Hope I helped!

[ohthatpatrick]

Fantastic explanation! If any of that didn't click for you, though, feel free to ask a follow-up question.

[ttunden]

Hey pat I got an easier way

Basically, the stimulus concedes to the supporter(other side) that there is a small chance but author concludes still unwise for the other side to carry through because consequence of that rare event are catastrophic.

So that was my paraphrase. I kept it fairly ambiguous since the subject matter will be different.

A eliminate automatically since it has an intermediate conclusion and a main conclusion. Stimulus just has one conclusion. Moreover, nothing catastrophic occurring.
B Eliminate. no opposing side like the stimulus
C Eliminate intermediate and main conclusion. Also the first sentence doesn't match up to anything in the stimulus. It's out of place
D yup this matches perfectly. we got an opposing side ilke the stimulus. one main conclusion like the stimulus with the other ruling out the other sides activity or what they are advocating for. We also have the catastrophic element as well.
E No catastrophic element like the stimulus. Enough to eliminate.