We start out with two facts: the government claims that public fear of nuclear accidents is groundless, and the the government has acted to limit the liability of plant owners in the event of a nuclear accident. From this, the author argues that since the government is implicitly admitting there is a chance of nuclear accident, the public does indeed have something to fear.
I think there are at least two ways we could attack this argument. First: just because the government admits there could be an accident doesn't mean the public has to fear. Perhaps the odds of an accident are so astronomically low that, while still not impossible, an accident is so unlikely to happen that it isn't worth worrying about. Or, perhaps a nuclear accident could occur, but only pose a risk to workers, but not to the general public? My second line of attack is that the government may not have actually admitted that an accident could occur. Perhaps they only moved to limit liability to assuage irrational concerns of investors in order to promote investment in nuclear.
For a principle strengthen we are looking to strength the argument.
D does this, although maybe less strongly that I would normally expect for a principle strengthen. D tells us that sometimes the government lies to the public, but if it takes an action to prevent something (in this case nuclear accident leading to plant bankruptcy) then there is always a chance that thing could happen.
If d were true, that would mean the government may have lied about there being no risk, and that there is a real danger an accident induced bankruptcy could arise. Thus. The public absolutely is right to fear a nuclear accident.
Emil-KunkinMay 10, 2023
Also, @devon I saw you recently posted a question about a sampling flaw and corporate workers. Do you happen to remember which preptest that was on? For some reason I can't access it
