PrepTest 149, Section 4, Question 17

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  This adds another possible harm to the person taking the risk: damaged social ties. But the conclusion concerns what governments are justified in outlawing. Learning about an additional personal cost doesn't supply a reason to reject the claimed authority to ban the activity.

• B

  A personal obligation isn't the same as a government's right to enforce it by law. Someone could believe that family responsibilities are a good reason to avoid a risk while still questioning whether the government should prohibit it. B doesn't address that distinction or undermine the claimed legal justification.

• C

  Read the condition at the end. C requires emotional or financial costs to others before government restrictions can be justified. The argument says these behaviors impose exactly those costs, so it doesn't violate that requirement.

  Meeting the requirement doesn't prove a ban is justified, either. C leaves open whether additional reasons are needed. It therefore doesn't provide the principle we want: a reason the stated costs are insufficient for the author's conclusion.

• D
  Correct

  Preventing harm to others isn't enough on its own to justify limiting personal freedom. That directly challenges the argument, which treats the emotional and financial costs as enough to justify a ban. D needn't say governments can never regulate risky conduct. It says this argument hasn't supplied enough justification merely by identifying harm to other people.

• E

  This ranks two personal obligations: avoiding harm to others and avoiding harm to oneself. Even if we accepted that ranking, we would still need to know when the government may prohibit conduct. E doesn't turn that moral priority into a limit on the government's authority, so it doesn't undermine the reasoning in the conclusion.