PrepTest 139, Section 1, Question 18
Editorial: In order to encourage personal responsibility in(27 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AWe should not(35 more words not shown)
- BThe scientist who(36 more words not shown)
- CEven though public(41 more words not shown)
- DHighway speed limits(39 more words not shown)
- EIt is not(40 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Let adults make their own choices and face the consequences. But what if their choices hurt someone else?
The editorial includes that exception. Society should leave adults' actions and likely results alone unless intervention prevents negative effects on others. That distinguishes protecting someone from their own choices from protecting other people who might be affected.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for a view that violates that rule. A restriction justified only by harm to the adult making the choice would cross the line. Keep the exception precise, though: the editorial allows intervention to protect others; it doesn't require banning every activity that can affect others.
Working the answers
- A
Wasting one's own homework time is separated from disrupting other students. For adult students, allowing the former while restricting the latter fits the distinction between personal consequences and harm to others. If the students are children, the editorial's rule about adults doesn't govern that case. Either way, A doesn't establish a conflict with the principle.
- B
This opposes restricting other people's opportunity to profit when there is no evidence that their doing so would reduce the inventor's profits. That is compatible with leaving people free to act absent a harmful effect on someone else. The fact that the activity involves profit rather than physical safety doesn't make it irrelevant to the principle.
- C
The possible harm to others is acknowledged, but the answer says it can be eliminated without banning smoking. The editorial doesn't insist on a ban when less restrictive ways of preventing the harm are available. C's preference for avoiding an unnecessary restriction is consistent with the principle.
- D
This justifies a restriction by pointing to injuries and deaths imposed on other people, and says the restriction reduces those harms. That fits the editorial's exception. The drivers' own risk isn't the only reason given for limiting their conduct.
- ECorrect
The proposed ban is justified by adults continuing to consume substances despite warnings about harm to themselves. It doesn't point to negative effects on other people. Under the editorial's principle, the fact that adults make a harmful personal choice is not enough to justify restricting it. E uses precisely that fact as the reason to make the conduct illegal.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.