Passage Summary: The government tells us not to worry about nuclear plants, but then they create a safety net for the industry in case of a disaster. The author argues that this double-talk makes the public's fear reasonable.

Conclusion: The public's fear regarding the safety of nuclear power plants is actually justified.

Reasoning: The government's policy of limiting liability to prevent bankruptcy implies that accidents are possible, contradicting their claim that the plants are entirely safe.

Analysis: This argument relies on an unstated bridge between the government's inconsistent behavior and the legitimacy of public fear. To justify the editorial's conclusion, we need a principle that says if a group's actions or secondary claims suggest a danger exists, then fearing that danger is reasonable. You should look for a rule that validates the transition from 'the government acts as if there is a risk' to 'therefore, the public is right to be afraid.' It’s a classic case of 'watch what they do, not what they say.'