It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim cou...
Julie-VJuly 15, 2019
Answers A and B
Hello LSAT Max!
I was wondering if someone could explain why A and B are wrong. I eliminated C along with D and E because I thought economic and bureaucratic problems were irrelevant to the idea of dumping nuclear waste in areas of sparsely populated regions. Choice A looked like a more attractive answer because it gave off the notion that less people to follow an evacuation plan would be more effective than more people in a dense region. But since A and B talk about how having a smaller population would be better in the event of an accident, would they be eliminated since they don't weaken the misgivings about safety (and instead strengthen rather than weaken)? Thank you in advance for the help!
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Thanks for the question! So the argument is basically concluding that policy makers still have some misgivings about safety with the disposal of nuclear waste, despite what they say. (A) is wrong because it actually strengthens the argument, and we're looking for something that weakens the argument, as you note. It gives us a reason for the misgivings, since evacuation plans can't work unless the population is small. (B) also strengthens the argument, and is therefore wrong (since we want something that weakens the most). It supports the idea that there should be misgivings about safety, since fewer people would be harmed in sparsely populated than densely populated areas. Hope this helps!
