PrepTest 119, Section 1, Question 24

Working the answers

• A

  The claim about any fair rule is made within the driving example. A extends it to all situations and substitutes uniform enforcement for fairness. Rules can be enforced uniformly without being equally acceptable or equally protective.

• B

  We do have a private organization: the athletic organization imposing the steroid rule. The ending describes its justification, like the driving example's, as a complex appeal to preventing harm. B denies the very parallel the writer draws.

• C
  Correct

  The writer says, in the driving example, having a fair coordination rule is preferable to having none (paragraph 2). An effective fair rule would prevent the danger of drivers choosing incompatible sides. That supports the inference that implementing it would do less harm than it prevents.

  This is an inference from the comparison, not a separate definition of fair. We aren't told that every fair rule in every setting automatically has that result.

• D

  Understanding why a rule helps doesn't establish that regulation and enforcement become unnecessary. The example explicitly includes a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions.

• E

  The writer argues that criminal sanctions can be justified for coordination problems, even though the relation to harm is less direct than with burglary or assault. E denies that conclusion.