Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 4 · Question 26

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." The letter's premises do not discuss whether "other options" to nuclear power are "available" or whether nuclear power "has the potential of causing harm." Moreover, the letter's conclusion isn't about whether it is "irresponsible to take a possibly beneficial course of action." In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's incorrect.

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." While the letter's premises discuss antinuclear activists' preference to eliminate "a potentially harmful" practice rather than try to improve it, the conclusion never asserts that it's "better" to eliminate that practice. Moreover, the premises don't establish that "improving" the practice will not reduce the harm it causes. In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's wrong.

This principle resembles "Premises → Conclusion." The letter's premises establish that the nuclear power advocates are "calling on" the antinuclear activists to "act in a way that will possibly undermine their goals." The letter's premises say that if the antinuclear activists help find a better way to dispose of nuclear waste, then the use of nuclear power would become more acceptable and more likely to continue. This would undermine the antinuclear activists' goal to rid the world of nuclear power. Further, the letter's conclusion asserts that "it is dishonest" for the nuclear power advocates to ask the antinuclear activists to help find a better way to dispose of nuclear waste to "live up to their own ideals." In short, this "if-then" statement connects the letter's premises to its conclusion, thereby justifying the reasoning in the letter's argument. We can select this answer choice and finish up this question.

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." The letter's premises do not say that the nuclear power advocates do not believe that it's acceptable to use nuclear power or find a better way to dispose of nuclear waste. In fact, commonsense dictates that nuclear power advocates would necessarily find both practices acceptable. Moreover, the letter's conclusion doesn't argue that it's "irresponsible" to try to make the antinuclear activists believe that it's acceptable to use nuclear power or find a better way to dispose of nuclear waste. In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's incorrect.

This principle doesn't quite doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." To diagram this principle, we can use the "if-denying" keyword "without." That would give us "NOT dishonest to ask people to live up to their own ideals → Reveal whether your ideals conflict with others'," or its flipside, "NOT reveal whether your ideals conflict with others → Dishonest to ask people to live up to their own ideals." The flipside's "then" condition matches up with the letter's conclusion. However, the letter's premises do not say that the nuclear power advocates did not reveal whether their ideals conflict with the antinuclear activists. In fact, it's probably apparent to both sides that their ideals conflict (at least as far as they relate to the use of nuclear power). In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's incorrect.