[問題]OG-18

[usamiyo]

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 peopel 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 th efollowing, if true, most seriously weakens tha conclusion drawn above?

A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone stits n the front seat.

B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for th e increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.

C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landing.

D. The rate of automobile fatalities n states that do not have mandatory seat-belt laws is greater than than rate of fatalities in states tha tdo have such laws.

E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured tahtn are passengers who do wear seta belts.

為何答案是 B 呢? 保費跟個人選擇繫安全帶與否,有關嗎? 文章結論不是說只要不傷害他人, 是否繫安全帶是個人的決定. 不太清楚?

[raikennon]

B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for th e increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.


B的意思是說保費會這麼高的原因是因為保險公司必須付錢給沒有繫安全帶而受傷的人,也就是雖然繫不繫安全帶是自由意志,但一旦發生車禍時,沒有繫安全帶的人所需的醫療費用還是要由全體人來負擔

open to discuss

[kallyli]

"as long as the peopel do not harm others as a result of taking the risks." is the point, coz premium should be bored by all the citizens other than one person.

[jeremy1983]

題目的說法是︰
只要不傷害別人→自由選擇

要把它weaken掉，第一個方法是把link否認；第二個方法是將前提否認。
答案所採的是第二個方法，也就是直接否認「不會傷害別人」的前提。

不知道這樣思考可不可以……

[acharlie]

題目的說法是︰
只要不傷害別人→自由選擇

要把它weaken掉，第一個方法是把link否認；第二個方法是將前提否認。
答案所採的是第二個方法，也就是直接否認「不會傷害別人」的前提。

不知道這樣思考可不可以……

題目的因: 個人可以自由決定要不要綁安全帶,只要不傷害別人下
故推論出: 應該由每個人來決定要不要綁安全帶
B答案就說 汽車保險費會上漲,是因為沒綁安全帶造成受傷或死亡人數增加
這樣的話就會傷害到其他人了
因為會使得其他人的保險費也跟著增加

--------
繼續討論