Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks. As a result, they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?
  • a)
    Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.
  • b)
    Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.
  • c)
    Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
  • d)
    The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
  • e)
    In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Related Test

Answers

KHALAK SINGH
Jul 19, 2019
The principle that people are entitled to risk injury provided they do not thereby harm others fails to justify the individual's right to decide not to wear seat belts if it can be shown, as B shows, that that decision does harm others. Therefore, B is the best answer. A suggests that the law may be irrelevant in some cases, but it does not address the issue of the law's legitimacy. C cites a requirement analogous to the one at issue, but its existence alone does not bear on the legitimacy of the one at issue. The argument implicitly concedes that individuals take risks by not wearing seat belts; therefore, D and E, which simply confirm this concession, do not weaken the conclusion. 

The principle that people are entitled to risk injury provided they do not thereby harm others fails to justify the individuals right to decide not to wear seat belts if it can be shown, as B shows, that that decision does harm others. Therefore, B is the best answer. A suggests that the law may be irrelevant in some cases, but it does not address the issue of the laws legitimacy. C cites a requirement analogous to the one at issue, but its existence alone does not bear on the legitimacy of the one at issue. The argument implicitly concedes that individuals take risks by not wearing seat belts; therefore, D and E, which simply confirm this concession, do not weaken the conclusion.
The principle that people are entitled to risk injury provided they do not thereby harm others fails to justify the individuals right to decide not to wear seat belts if it can be shown, as B shows, that that decision does harm others. Therefore, B is the best answer. A suggests that the law may be irrelevant in some cases, but it does not address the issue of the laws legitimacy. C cites a requirement analogous to the one at issue, but its existence alone does not bear on the legitimacy of the one at issue. The argument implicitly concedes that individuals take risks by not wearing seat belts; therefore, D and E, which simply confirm this concession, do not weaken the conclusion.