Editorial: The government claims that country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe and hence public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless. The government also contends that its recent action to limit nuclear industry's financial liability in the case of nuclear reactors at power plants is justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from 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 is therefore, well founded.

Which of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the editorial's argumentation?

A. If the government claims that something is unsafe then, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that nothing should be assumed to be unsafe.

B. Fear that a certain kind of event will occur is well founded if those who have control over the occurrence of event of that kind stand to benefit financially from such an occurrence.

C. If a potentially dangerous thing is safe only because the financial security of those responsible for its operation depends on its being safe, then eliminating that dependence is not in the best interests of public.

D. the government sometimes makes unsupported claims about what situations will arise, but it does not act to prevent a certain kind of situation from arising unless there is a real danger that such a situation will arise.

E. If a real financial threat to a major industry exists, then the government action to limit that threat is justified.

OA later.