#17 - Meade: People who are injured as a result of their

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—PR. The correct answer choice is (D)

Despite the length of this stimulus, the structure of the argument contained within it is simple,
consisting of just one premise and a conclusion. Meade’s conclusion is that governments are justified
in prohibiting behavior that puts one’s own health at risk in order to protect the interests of others.
Meade bases this conclusion on evidence that when people are injured because of their own risky
behavior, they do not just harm themselves, but cause emotional and financial harm to those people
who share important ties with them.

By concluding that government action in this area is justified, Meade has applied a rule to the
evidence. In essence, the rule is that if a person’s risky behavior imposes emotional and financial
costs on another, then the government is justified in outlawing such behavior. The question stem
identifies this as a Weaken—Principle question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice
will attack this conclusion by attacking the validity of the implicit assumption. In other words, we
are looking for an answer choice that tells us that the government is not necessarily justified in
outlawing behavior that imposes emotional and financial costs on others.

Answer choice (A): The endangerment of social ties is irrelevant to the conclusion, because the
danger to these ties was not mentioned in either the premise or the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): Here, the obligation of individuals is irrelevant to the conclusion, which had to
do with whether or not government action is justified.

Answer choice (C): In this case, the answer choice tells us that in order for the government to limit
an individual’s behavior it is required that the behavior imposes emotional or financial costs on
others. This requirement does not weaken the conclusion that government action in this circumstance
is justified.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because it contradicts the rule that Meade
applied implicitly to reach the conclusion. If preventing harm to others does not justify governmental
imposition of limits on personal freedom, then Meade’s conclusion is significantly weakened.

Answer choice (E): This comparison between the people’s obligations is irrelevant to the conclusion,
which deals with whether certain government action is justified.

[rlouis1993]

For answer choice (B), isn't it essentially taking the burden off the government and putting it on the responsibility of the individuals? It seems to me that weakens the conclusion because it takes the decision away from the government (as stated in the conclusion) and gives "the people" the discretion.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Saying that people have an obligation to do something doesn't relieve the government of its ability to regulate it, rlouis. Many laws are things that people have somewhat of a personal obligation to do. For example, laws that require you to provide care and support to your minor children are regulating activities that you already have a personal obligation to do. The personal obligation does not impact the government's justification for regulating or legislating around the issue.

Further, there's nothing in the stimulus to link government regulations with existing obligations. You are reading the stimulus with the idea that only one side of an issue has the ability or justification to have a view on an issue. That's not in the stimulus, and we can't read it in. Answer choice (B) it wouldn't impact the conclusion because it doesn't impact the governmental justification.

Hope that helps!