Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and non-smokers on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private sector that cannot be justified. The fact that studies indicate that non-smokers might be harmed by inhaling the smoke from others' cigarettes is not the main issue.
Rather, the main issue concerns the government's violation of the right of private businesses to determine their own policies and rule.Which one of the following is principle that, if accepted, could enable the conclusion to be properly drawn?
The highlighted text is the conclusion. Question stem is asking which one of the choices basically fills the gap/jump to reach that conclusion.
First of all, the argument is about govt legislation and eventually govt breaking that.
(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses is justified
only when individuals might be harmed. - WRONG. Harm aspect is not the core of the argument.
(B) The right of individuals to breathe safe air
supersedes the right of businesses to be free from government intrusion. - WRONG. True may be but not impacting conclusion.
(C) The right of businesses to self-determination
overrides whatever right or duty the government may have to protect the individual. - CORRECT. Only if one's right is superior to other's than the conclusion can be reached.
(D) It is the
duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the workplace. - WRONG. This looks great but it is out of scope since duty is different than legislation. Finally, even if it is so then conclusion is not necessarily reached out.
(E) Where the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict, the main issue is finding a successful
compromise. - WRONG. Irrelevant.
Answer C.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA