Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless. The government also contends that its recent action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be sustained against the industry; and the government admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.If all of the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?
Answer(s): B
We're to accept that the government's position is accurately portrayed, and need to infer what must be true on the basis of that portrayal. While it's usually difficult to prephrase answers to Inference questions, perhaps a general sense of contradiction jumped out at you? After all, the government does appear to be speaking out of both sides of its PR office. On the one hand we have assurances to the public that nuclear power is perfectly safe. At the same time, however, the government is taking an action that seems to be necessary only if injury claims resulting from a nuclear accident can be sustained. If there's really no danger of injury, then such claims can't be sustained, and no limits to the industry's financial liability in case of accidents would be necessary. But the government has acted to protect the industry. Evidently, the government's pronouncements to the public regarding the safety of the plants doesn't match its own beliefs underlying its action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability. Something doesn't jibe here. As option [The government's position on] puts it, the government's position on nuclear power plants (specifically relating to the safety issue) is inconsistent.
Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless. The government also contends that its recent action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be sustained against the industry; and the government admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the editorial's argumentation?
Answer(s): D
Now we need a principle that justifies the editorial's position. Remember, the editorial concludes that the danger of a nuclear accident is real, based on the government's protection of the nuclear industry. But on the other hand, the government also says that there's no danger of a nuclear accident. A principle that would help this argument would explain away this contradiction while preserving the "bankruptcy" argument made in the last half of the stimulus. That's what option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about...]. does.Option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about...] addresses the government claim in the first sentence of the stimulus, but then goes on to identify what's really important. Sure, the government sometimes talks nonsense, but here's what you can count on: the government doesn't take preventative steps unless there's a real risk. Here, the government has taken preventative steps, since they've limited the liability of the nuclear industry, and so, given the principle in option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about...], we would be able to infer that there is a real danger, and so the public's fears would be well- founded. So this option supports the argument.
Linda says that, as a scientist, she knows that no scientist appreciates poetry. And, since most scientists are logical, at least some of the people who appreciate poetry are illogical.Which one of the following is most parallel in its reasoning to the flawed reasoning above?
A quick scan of the stimulus and choices reveals a remarkable similarity therein. All, for instance, begin with evidence in the form of No A (scientists/marsupials/fathers/wine aged in metal/color film/corporate execs) are B (appreciate poetry/lay eggs/want kids to eat candy at bedtime/is equal in quality to oak-aged wine/produces equally sharp images/like to pay taxes). The only wrong answer that can be quickly discarded after a quick scan is [Yuri says that, as a wine connoisseur, he knows that...]: Of the stimulus and the five choices, only option [Yuri says that, as a wine connoisseur, he knows that...] fails to present a conclusion that includes the phrase At least some X. So this option cannot be correct.
Automobile-emission standards are enforced through annual inspection. At those inspections cars are tested while idling; that is, standing still with their engines running. Testing devices measure the levels of various pollutants as exhaust gases leave the tail pipe.Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that current enforcement of automobile-emission standards might be ineffective in controlling overall pollutant levels?
Answer(s): C
This is a tricky question stem. What's really going on here is that you're going to be questioning the logic of the enforcement program. The stimulus tells you that car emission standards are enforced through annual inspection. At inspection, cars are tested while idling, and the test measures the levels of pollutants leaving the tail pipe. You have to determine which answer choice, if true, would show why that particular testing program would not be effective in controlling overall pollutant levels. Option [The adjustments needed to make a car idle cleanly...] does the job by suggesting that reducing "idling" pollution emissions will increase pollution emissions while driving.
The indigenous people of Tasmania are clearly related to the indigenous people of Australia, but were separated from them when the land bridge between Australia and Tasmania disappeared approximately 10,000 years ago. Two thousand years after the disappearance of the land bridge, however, there were major differences between the culture and technology of the indigenous Tasmanians and those of the indigenous Australians. The indigenous Tasmanians, unlike their Australian relatives, had no domesticated dogs, fishing nets, polished stone tools, or hunting implements like the boomerang and the spear-thrower. Each of the following, if true, would contribute to an explanation of differences described above EXCEPT:
The question stem tells us that we need to explain the differences, just a variation on the resolve the paradox theme. But remember, if an answer choice does explain the difference, it's incorrect. We're looking for the one that has no effect. We know that the Tasmanians and Australians are related, and we know that they were separated about 10,000 years ago when a land bridge disappeared. Within two thousand years, there were significant differences between the Tasmanians and Australians. Each one of the incorrect answer choices will explain how those differences came about, but option [Devices such as the spear-thrower and...] doesn't, so it's correct. If the Tasmanians developed those weapons over 10,000 years ago, that doesn't explain why they don't have them now. It does explain why the Australians have them, since the Australians were linked to the Tasmanians by the land bridge when the weapons were developed. But it doesn't explain why the Tasmanians no longer have them. So option [Devices such as the spear-thrower and...] is the correct answer.
On a Tuesday, an accountant has exactly seven bills -- numbered 1 through 7 -- to pay by Thursday of the same week. The accountant will pay each bill only once according to the following rules:Either three or four of the seven bills must be paid on Wednesday, the rest on Thursday.Bill 1 cannot be paid on the same day as bill 5.Bill 2 must be paid on Thursday.Bill 4 must be paid on the same day as bill 7.If bill 6 is paid on Wednesday, bill 7 must be paid on Thursday.If exactly four bills are paid on Wednesday, then those four bills could be
A "partial" acceptability question. As always, we'll check the rules against the choices, crossing out choices that violate a rule. Rule 1 is not violated by any choice. Rule 2 says that bills 1 and 5 can't be paid on the same day.Option [1, 3, 5, and 6] has 1 and 5 together, so it's out. Notice also choice [3, 4, 6, and 7], which leaves 1 and 5 to be paid together on Thursday, another violation of Rule 2. Rule 3 is violated by option [2, 4, 5, and 7], which has bill 2 on Wednesday, and Rule 4 is violated by option [1,3, 4, and 6], which has 4 without 7. With only one choice left, we've found our answer, [3, 4, 5, and 7].
On a Tuesday, an accountant has exactly seven bills -- numbered 1 through 7 -- to pay by Thursday of the same week. The accountant will pay each bill only once according to the following rules:Either three or four of the seven bills must be paid on Wednesday, the rest on Thursday.Bill 1 cannot be paid on the same day as bill 5.Bill 2 must be paid on Thursday.Bill 4 must be paid on the same day as bill 7.If bill 6 is paid on Wednesday, bill 7 must be paid on Thursday.Which one of the following is a complete and accurate list of the bills any one of which could be among the bills paid on Wednesday?
We need to find the choice that lists all of the bills that could possibly be paid on Wednesday, and none of the bills that must be paid on Thursday. Choices [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7] and [1,2,3,4, 5, 6, and 7] can be eliminated, because they both list bill 2, which must be paid on Thursday (Rule 3).
On a Tuesday, an accountant has exactly seven bills -- numbered 1 through 7 -- to pay by Thursday of the same week. The accountant will pay each bill only once according to the following rules:Either three or four of the seven bills must be paid on Wednesday, the rest on Thursday.Bill 1 cannot be paid on the same day as bill 5.Bill 2 must be paid on Thursday.Bill 4 must be paid on the same day as bill 7.If bill 6 is paid on Wednesday, bill 7 must be paid on Thursday.If bill 2 and bill 6 are paid on different days from each other, which one of the following must be true?
Answer(s): A
We know that bill 2 is paid on Thursday, so, bill 6 must therefore be paid on Wednesday.Rule 5 then dictates that the accountant pay bill 7 on Thursday, along with bill 4 (Rule 4).We now have four bills on Thursday (2, 7, 4, and 1/5), so the remaining bill, 3, must be paid on Wednesday.
Share your comments for LSAC LSAT SECTION 1: LOGICAL REASONING exam with other users:
its helpful alot.
the questiosn from this braindumps are same as in the real exam. my passing mark was 84%.
it is an exam that measures your understanding of cloud computing resources provided by aws. these resources are aligned under 6 categories: storage, compute, database, infrastructure, pricing and network. with all of the services and typees of services under each category
good and very useful
i cleared the az-104 exam by scoring 930/1000 on the exam. it was all possible due to this platform as it provides premium quality service. thank you!
easy questions
could you please upload ad0-127 dumps
good content
understanding about joins
please upload oracle cloud infrastructure 2023 foundations associate exam braindumps. thank you.
questions made studying easy and enjoyable, passed on the first try!
has anyone recently attended safe 6.0 exam? did you see any questions from here?
question 13 should be dhcp option 43, right?
the buy 1 get 1 is a great deal. so far i have only gone over exam. it looks promissing. i report back once i write my exam.
is this dump good
good ................
passed
yes going good
good questions for practice
need dump and sap notes for c_s4cpr_2308 - sap certified application associate - sap s/4hana cloud, public edition - sourcing and procurement
question 11: d i personally feel some answers are wrong.
nice questions
looking for c1000-158: ibm cloud technical advocate v4 questions
can you share the pdf
admin ii is real technical stuff
could you post the link
hello send me dumps
it is very nice
i gave the amazon dva-c02 tests today and passed. very helpful.
there is an incorrect word in the problem statement. for example, in question 1, there is the word "speci c". this is "specific. in the other question, there is the word "noti cation". this is "notification. these mistakes make this site difficult for me to use.
passed my az-120 certification exam today with 90% marks. studied using the dumps highly recommended to all.
i need it, plz make it available
q47: intrusion prevention system is the correct answer, not patch management. by definition, there are no patches available for a zero-day vulnerability. the way to prevent an attacker from exploiting a zero-day vulnerability is to use an ips.
this is simple but tiugh as well