PrepTest 107

[lcid:3524] Prep Test 107 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Editorial: The government claims Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Must Be True Questions

Stimulus Summary

Government: Nuclear plants are safe, so people’s fears are overblown
Government action - Limit nuclear liability in case of accidents
Justification - Protect nuclear industry from bankruptcy
Liability threatens industry → Injury claims sustained
Injury claims sustained → Injuries caused by nuclear accident
Judgment - The Public’s fear is well-founded

Answer Anticipation

This is an interesting set of questions. Must be True questions tend to provide only statements of fact, but Principle (Strengthen) questions have arguments. That tells us that we have an Argument in this Must be True question!
When we have an argument, we treat the conclusion as true. We also don’t treat any opposing points - for instance, the Government’s opening argument - as providing true statements. We need only accept that the Government makes that argument.
With all that said, it’s hard to anticipate an answer. There are two conditionals that chain together (Liability threatens industry → Injuries caused by nuclear accident), but there’s a lot of other information that is presented. There are also a few viewpoints presented, and the answers could be “filtered” through them (e.g., an answer that starts, “According to the government…”).
Let’s head to the answers and check ones that seem plausible against the stimulus.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The government's claim about Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Such a tempting answer! The government claims that the nuclear power plants are “entirely safe.” If there’s any risk, then that claim is false. And the Editorial does say that the public’s fears are well-founded, and that liability would threaten the industry only if there’s risk of injury from nuclear accidents. However, it’s possible that the public’s fears are well-founded because the government is acting as if injury is possible when it actually isn’t. The conditional doesn’t state that injuries being caused by nuclear accidents are a necessary condition of the government providing liability protection - it’s a necessary condition of the liability threatening the industry. And while the government claims that this liability protection is necessary to protect the industry from bankruptcy, that claim could be false, not the claim that the plants are safe. In short, the government makes two claims that can’t both be true (plants are safe; plants need a liability shield), but we don’t know which one is false. Since this answer picks one of the two to call false, it’s not something that must be true.
  2. B
    The government's position on Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    Right off the tail of the last explanation, we get an answer that lines up with it! The government has two claims about nuclear plants - 1) they’re completely safe; 2) the industry needs a liability shield to protect it from bankruptcy. The Editorial shows that the latter would be true only if there is an actual risk of injury from nuclear accidents - which would mean that the plants aren’t completely safe. Since the government is making a statement that contradicts its actions, it has an inconsistent position, so this answer is correct.
  3. C
    The government misrepresented its Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    While the government’s position is inconsistent, that doesn’t mean that they’re lying. They could just hold an illogical position, with views that contradict each other! People believe contradictory things all the time.
  4. D
    Unlimited financial liability in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The conditionals state that this is true only if the plants pose no risk of injury. Since the Editorial concludes that the public’s fear of such injuries is well-founded, she’s definitely not committed to the view that the plants are completely safe - that’s the government’s position.
  5. E
    The only serious threat Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The Editorial seems to be on the side of the public, who fear injury from a nuclear accident. So, at the very least, she believes that there’s at least a risk of injuries from such an accident.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion