Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks. As a result, they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.
(B) Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or dealths of people not wearing seat belts
(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear belts during takeoffs and landings.
(D) The rate of automobile fatalities in state that do not have mandatory seat-belt is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws
(E) In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are pasengers who do not wear seat belts
The principle that people are entitled to risk injury provided they do not thereby harm others fails to justify the
individual’s right to decide not to wear seat belts if it can be shown, as B shows, that that decision does harm
others. Therefore, B is the best answer. A suggests that the law may be irrelevant in some cases, but it does not
address the issue of the law’s legitimacy. C cites a requirement analogous to the one at issue, but its existence
alone does not bear on the legitimacy of the one at issue. The argument implicitly concedes that individuals take
risks by not wearing seat belts; therefore, D and E, which simply confirm this concession, do not weaken the
If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, Thanks