OG14

[agk99]

老題目了，可以確認答案是B
但OG解釋太繞了，請各位不吝解釋，謝謝

14. 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 other 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 deaths of people not wearing seat belts.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws 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 passengers who do wear seat belts.
As long as not harm others when they are taking risks, people should take the risk by themselves to decide whether to wear a seat belt.

14.
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 conclusion.

[agk99]

自己頂
看了一遍還是挺繞的

[micht]

我的理解如下

開車人反對 行車規定說..一定要繫安全帶
反對reason則是: 大家都有自主權力~有些人願意危害自己生命 put himself in danger那是他自己選擇的~~誰叫他自己要選擇不繫安全帶~

因此 開車人conclude 繫不繫應該由他們自己決定~不應該規定!!

Weaken:
B. 車子保費are higher 因為保險公司必須支負 那些沒繫安全帶者 傷者 or 離難者 (原因是 開車人常常 put others in danger 自己不怕死不繫安全帶就算了 出事故造成 他們的行為 危害了他人的生命

[agk99]

我懂
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.
只是這句實在太繞，很難懂，我猜大致上是講

有些人更本不能證明"只要他冒險不影響到別人，就有權決定不綁安全帶"，這樣對嗎

[micht]

14. 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 other 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.

我懂
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.
只是這句實在太繞，很難懂，我猜大致上是講

有些人更本不能證明"只要他冒險不影響到別人，就有權決定不綁安全帶"，這樣對嗎

我的理解是

(請看上面的粗體字) 一些人秉持的原則是自己對自己的risk injury負責(因為是他們自幾選擇的)..且不會危害到他人← 這個理念沒有justify 沒有提出合理的證據證明他們不繫安全帶 不會危害他人 不會剝奪他人生命的權力

[clelia]

#14
我是這麼理解的。

(因)人們有冒受傷風險的權利-->要不要綁安全帶自己高興就好(果)

（因）中隱含的意義：只要不影響他人的權利，每個人對於自己風險的高低有自主權。
weaken題，真接否定因。所以要証明這個自主權是會影響到他人的權利的。

OG的解釋的確是很繞，
試著簡單的說說看，
人們被賦予承受風險的權利，只要他們能夠証明不綁安全帶這件事不會傷害到別人。
B的答案是說：
如果大家決定要不要綁安全帶隨自己高興，那大家付的(all auto owners)保費都要隨著增加。premium一起增加，表示大家站在相同的risk上，所以這些被賦予承受風險的權利的人，沒有辦法証明他們能夠証明不綁安全帶這件事不會傷害到別人。

說的很白話~~

不知道對嗎??

[micht]

celia 翻ㄉ好 (Y)

不好意思 小女中文造詣不好..... i12

:-$

[agk99]

謝謝大家的煩惱，只是我把CR當SC看，覺得我是來鬧場的可千萬不要生氣喔

[vitality]

我怎麼看都覺得 (D)和(E)也有weaken
可以幫忙解釋一下嗎?
想了好久還是想不出來
感激！！！

[chvenson]

我怎麼看都覺得 (D)和(E)也有weaken
可以幫忙解釋一下嗎?
想了好久還是想不出來
感激！！！

以下是小弟的淺見，若有高手，也請多多指教

反對法案者的結論是
(前提)不傷害他人+(因)人民有權利--->(果)人民可決定自己承擔風險

(D)在沒有實施安全帶的國家之死亡率較有實施的高
(E)在車禍中，不繫安全帶的死亡率較較繫安全帶的高

此二選項皆與(前提)及(因)都"無關"
最多只能證明不繫安全帶的風險高，並無法弱化(前提)

而(B)中提到，因為人民不繫安全帶，導致整體保費提高
整體保費提高=傷害他人，此選項才有弱化的效果

[peche]

vitality 寫到:
我怎麼看都覺得 (D)和(E)也有weaken
可以幫忙解釋一下嗎?
想了好久還是想不出來
感激！！！

D)The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
--- This does not weaken opponents's point 因為你可以想成死的人還是那些沒帶seat belt 的人 所以和她們的論點 並沒有衝突

E) In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.
沒帶安全帶的人 死的多 所以還是沒有反駁到Opponent of laws 那些人

hope this helps~

[Ivan]

I totally agree with Chvension's viewpoint !

[chencraig0227]

我怎麼看都覺得 (D)和(E)也有weaken
可以幫忙解釋一下嗎?
想了好久還是想不出來
感激！！！

以下是小弟的淺見，若有高手，也請多多指教

反對法案者的結論是
(前提)不傷害他人+(因)人民有權利--->(果)人民可決定自己承擔風險

(D)在沒有實施安全帶的國家之死亡率較有實施的高
(E)在車禍中，不繫安全帶的死亡率較較繫安全帶的高

此二選項皆與(前提)及(因)都"無關"
最多只能證明不繫安全帶的風險高，並無法弱化(前提)

而(B)中提到，因為人民不繫安全帶，導致整體保費提高
整體保費提高=傷害他人，此選項才有弱化的效果

你這句話救了我! 因為我怎麼都想不透為什麼car owners的保費提高
就會傷害他人! 原來是害其他守規矩的人一起要繳較高的保費!!!!

通了! 通了!!哈哈!

(PS：美國人會富強不是沒有道理，因為要是東方人一定覺得我不繫安全帶
關別人屁事(哈! 我就是這樣想啦!)，原來還有這層邏輯在)