Q21 - The initial causes of serious

[backupbecool]

I narrowed the answer down to A B and C and I thought that A was irrelevant. Then I chose C because even though I had a hunch it may be B, C also seemed to address the problem that most accidents are caused by human error. So if this is true then couldn't C be right? I mean, I know its wrong, but humor me.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You said it exactly.

C also seemed to address the problem that most accidents are caused by human error.

That does not mean that the likelihood of human error cannot be lessened by thoughtful design of the consoles.

We're looking for something that is "strongly supported." It's in your interest to think of these as asking for what "must be true." Just maybe be a little less strict with the language.

We know that "such everyday events cannot be thought unlikely to occur over the long run."

(A) is too strong. We don't know that the threat is "ever-increasing."
(B) is perfectly weak. "Not improbable" can be easily justified.
(C) is too strong. We cannot establish that the threat "cannot be lessened."
(D) is out of scope. We don't know this about the design of nuclear power plants.
(E) is too strong. We cannot establish that only human error will cause future accidents.


Thanks for the great question. The language in the answer choices is very informative for looking at inference questions.

[nflamel69]

Noah,

Can we also eliminate A on the fact says now that nuclear power generation has become a part of everyday life? this wasn't explicitly said in the stimulus> however, if they said if, then it's not out of scope, but we can still eliminate it on the ever-increasing part. what do you think?

[mharr]

I have a random question. If this question was a sufficient assumption question instead of an inference question, would it be possible for answer choice C or E to be correct?

The last sentence of the stim. could be viewed as the conclusion. The conclusion being that accidents due to human error and plumbing can be thought likely to occur over the long run. The first premise states that accidents at nuclear plants were not due to flaws in technology but were due to human error and plumbing.

By making the conclusion that accidents due to human error and plumbing are likely to occur over the long run, the speaker is assuming that human error cannot be reduced via use of equipment (as stated in answer choice C) or that technology will not have a flaw that causes an accident (as stated in answer choice E).

The speaker could make other assumptions. For example, that nuclear plant employees will continue to make errors that lead to accidents.

Is my way of thinking correct? I am trying to see how certain answer choices may be incorrect for one question type and correct for another.

Thank you for your time.