Antinuclear activist: The closing of the nuclear power plant is a victory for the antinuclear cause. It also repr...

Ravi on July 22, 2019

@Eugenia-Ouyang,

Happy to help. Let's take a look at (E).

In the argument, the antinuclear activist presents two conclusions.
The first is that his cause won a victory and the second is that the
power industry acknowledges that they closed the plant because they
couldn't operate it safely.

The nuclear manager takes issue with the second point, stating that it
was economic considerations—not safety concerns—that forced the plant
to close. The problem with the manager's argument is that he is
essentially admitting that it was too expensive to operate the plant
safely. He's assuming that economics and safety issues are mutually
exclusive, but they actually aren't.

(E) says, "counts as purely economic considerations some expenses that
arise as a result of the need to take safety precautions"

(E) describes the manager's flaw well. The manager takes economic
issues as totally separate from safety concerns while at the same time
admitting that they're directly tied to safety. Thus, (E) is the
correct answer choice.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!