QUESTION TEXT: Proponents of nuclear power point out that…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: We shouldn’t build nuclear power plants, even though they’re unlikely to melt down.
REASONING: If a meltdown did occur, it would be catastrophic.
ANALYSIS: This is a reasonable argument. We shouldn’t consider only the odds of something happening. We should also consider how big the impact would be if something bad happened.
You need to find a situation with low risk, but which has a big impact if anything does go wrong.
___________
- This is a good argument, but has a different structure. Here, the conclusion is that the odds of a climbing accident are actually quite high. In the stimulus, the author agreed that meltdowns are rare.
- This doesn’t discuss probability or impact. It may be good advice, but it’s not a parallel argument.
- This does mention small risk. But it doesn’t talk about the high impact of a mistake. Instead, it just says there is little to gain from skydiving.
- CORRECT. Low risk, but big impact if anything goes wrong. This argument is exactly parallel.
- This talks about how easy it is to wear a seatbelt. It doesn’t talk about what happens if you don’t wear one.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply