Top Law Schools

I got this question right, but there's something about this argument (particularly the last parts) that still puzzles me.

Okay so Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in places where they are far from plate boundaries and have only minor faults. Places called quiet regions. Got it!

None of these minor faults causes an earthquake more frequently than 1 in a 100,000 years. Got it!

Thus, the argument concludes, all the possible nuclear reactor sites in this region (quiet region, right?) which are also least likely to have an earthquake, are located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory.

HUGE disconnect regarding "within living memory." Why must that be the case?

The assumption (and correct answer choice) is apparently in the quiet region, every possible nuclear rector site in near at least one of these minor faults, but how exactly does this line up regarding the earthquakes in living memory?

If they're all located near a minor fault, this doesn't still bridge the gap to me.

Anyone?!

WordPass wrote:The assumption (and correct answer choice) is apparently in the quiet region, every possible nuclear rector site in near at least one of these minor faults, but how exactly does this line up regarding the earthquakes in living memory?

The "recent memory" bit in the conclusion is related to the idea that the safest reactors are the ones placed in areas that have already experienced the no-more-than-once-every-100,000-years earthquake.

If site A experienced an earthquake within recent memory - say a year before the site was built - but site B hasn't experienced an earthquake for as long as anyone alive can remember, and the earthquake only happens once every 100,000 years, the conclusion holds that site A is therefore safer. The assumption, as you've said, is that they're both along these faults to begin with, rather than site B being not along a fault at all.