- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Apr 26, 2012
- Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:10 pm
#97469
Hi ltowns1!
Happy to address answer choices (B) and (C).
The author of the passage is using this phrase in a paragraph about steroid use. In general, the passage starts with a background view that the criminal law is often thought to be warranted only to prevent harm to others. From this starting point, the author suggests some examples in "which this goal [of harm prevention] might at first seem not to apply" (lines 10-11). One of these examples, given in the second paragraph, is driving on a given side of the road as a matter of convention--at first this might not directly be about harm prevention but rather just coordination of activities, but this coordination can in fact prevent harm, though "less directly" (line 28) than laws that prevent "inherently harm-producing" acts like burglary and assault (lines 30-31).
The final paragraph, discussing steroid use in athletics, is where the "somewhat complex" phrase occurs: "So while it might appear that such a rule merely forces people to act for their own good, the deeper rationale for coercion here—as in the above example—is a somewhat complex appeal to the legitimacy of enforcing a rule with the goal of preventing harm" (lines 50-55). In other words, superficially it might not appear that a rule barring the use of steroids is about harm prevention but in actuality the author claims that such a "compulsory rule could prevent that harm and
thus would be in the interest of all competitors." The author explain the harms: "If some competitors use steroids, others have the option of either endangering their health or losing their fair opportunity to win" (lines 43-46). Thus the author provides an example of a rule that isn't ostensibly about preventing harm but actually is about preventing it more indirectly. This is reflected in answer choice (C).
Happy to address answer choices (B) and (C).
Would a valid reason for eliminating B because it says that those affected by the rule must be “required” to understand the motivation behind it? It seems like that’s a distortion of what the passage says in 48-50On the one hand, yes it seems to be the case that (B) is a bit of a distortion from what is at lines 48-50. On the other, it's not immediately clear how this is germane to the author's usage of the phrase "somewhat complex." So even if answer choice (B) did not distort and was even true based on the passage, this wouldn't make it the right answer choice for a question about the function of "somewhat complex" in the passage.
The author of the passage is using this phrase in a paragraph about steroid use. In general, the passage starts with a background view that the criminal law is often thought to be warranted only to prevent harm to others. From this starting point, the author suggests some examples in "which this goal [of harm prevention] might at first seem not to apply" (lines 10-11). One of these examples, given in the second paragraph, is driving on a given side of the road as a matter of convention--at first this might not directly be about harm prevention but rather just coordination of activities, but this coordination can in fact prevent harm, though "less directly" (line 28) than laws that prevent "inherently harm-producing" acts like burglary and assault (lines 30-31).
The final paragraph, discussing steroid use in athletics, is where the "somewhat complex" phrase occurs: "So while it might appear that such a rule merely forces people to act for their own good, the deeper rationale for coercion here—as in the above example—is a somewhat complex appeal to the legitimacy of enforcing a rule with the goal of preventing harm" (lines 50-55). In other words, superficially it might not appear that a rule barring the use of steroids is about harm prevention but in actuality the author claims that such a "compulsory rule could prevent that harm and
thus would be in the interest of all competitors." The author explain the harms: "If some competitors use steroids, others have the option of either endangering their health or losing their fair opportunity to win" (lines 43-46). Thus the author provides an example of a rule that isn't ostensibly about preventing harm but actually is about preventing it more indirectly. This is reflected in answer choice (C).
