PrepTest 119, Section 1, Question 22

Working the answers

• A

  Fair rules matter in the driving example, but equitable application isn't the central claim. The discussion explains how rules that look unrelated to harm can nevertheless protect others.

• B

  This is tempting because it includes both conformity and harm. But it treats harm to the nonconforming individual alone as enough to justify forcing conformity. The opening expressly distinguishes preventing harm to others from forcing someone to act purely for their own good. The argument also considers whether people would agree to a coordinating rule; it doesn't simply endorse every restriction whenever noncompliance could cause harm.

• C

  This reverses the explanatory direction. Preventing harm helps justify coordination rules. The writer isn't using coordination as the justification for rules against directly and indirectly harmful acts. Burglary and assault are contrasts to the coordination examples, not further examples of them.

• D

  Agreement on community standards doesn't always justify restricting liberty. The opening rejects enforcing harmless conformity merely for its own sake, and the rest supplies a harm-based reason for particular rules.

• E
  Correct

  This captures the turn at the end of the first paragraph: preventing harm to others can justify restrictions that initially seem outside that principle. Driving conventions and the steroid ban show how.

  That improves our initial prediction. Conformity isn't an independent good that automatically warrants punishment; coordination can be justified by the harm it prevents.