LR Question 18 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Activities that pose risks to life are acceptable if…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Parallel
PRINCIPLE:
- Acceptable risk to life ➞ Net benefit unattainable otherwise OR risks borne voluntarily
- Contrapositive:
Net benefit unattainable otherwiseANDrisks borne voluntarily➞Acceptable risk to life - Net benefit unattainable otherwise OR risks borne voluntarily ➞ Acceptable risk to life
- Contrapositive:
Acceptable risk to life➞Net benefit unattainable otherwiseANDrisks borne voluntarily
ANALYSIS: Two things to note about the principle above:
- The “if and only if” means the statement goes both ways. That’s why there are two versions (There are four statements above because I also included the contrapositives)
- The statements must be true about each person who faces the risks to life.
Note that this is an incredibly strict principle! Everyone must accept any slight risk to life, or the risk is unacceptable.
___________
- This isn’t acceptable. The salespersons’s car is less safe. If the salesperson gets in an accident, they might hurt others. Those others haven’t voluntarily accepted the risk.
- This doesn’t follow. A minimal risk is still a risk. Unless everyone accepts that risk, the risk is unacceptable according to the principle.
- CORRECT. This is allowed. The motorcyclist isn’t risking the lives of others. And any risk where everyone accepts the risk is acceptable. Here, the motorcyclist is “everyone”.
(You might have hesitated because you wondered if the motorist’s decision might put other motorists at risk. That’s not supported: the motorcyclist only faces additional risk if they have a crash. So I can’t see how lack of a helmet risks the lives of others: the crash would happen with or without a helmet.) - This is like B. There might be a good reason for the risk, but the risk is still there. This risk therefore isn’t acceptable unless everyone in the world voluntarily accepts it. A single dissenter could make all car travel unacceptable!
- The stimulus wasn’t about what was generally acceptable. It was only about which risks to life were acceptable.
Since this situation doesn’t involve risk, the principle has nothing to say about it.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
Thanks for the explanation! I’m struggling on why you couldn’t apply the same logic to C as to A – wouldn’t a motorcyclist harm someone else if they were in an accident?
Good question! C says “the risk of injury to the motorcyclist”. So It’s only referring about the morality of the risk to themselves. A motorcyclist doesn’t injure other people by not wearing a helmet.
I don’t agree with the explanation to answer A. The salesman not buying a new car with more safety features doesn’t make his current car any less safe. If he’s an extremely safe and cautious driver, it’s not relevant if the old car has less modern safety features. A is wrong because it doesn’t establish a risk to life.
It depends on how you view it. Every day you drive you take risks. If new safety features are out and you don’t buy them, then you are taking a relatively greater risk than if you did buy the new features.
This just isn’t true. No driver is perfect, and a cautious driver in a bad car will have more accidents than a cautious driver in a good car.
Look at it this way. Suppose you have a friend who has a laptop with a battery that overheats and could catch fire. Every day they come work at your house. They could update the laptop and eliminate the fire risk, but they don’t. They keep coming to your house. You don’t agree with their decision not to upgrade.
In this situation I would say you are bearing a risk, even though the laptop is no riskier than before. Each day you nonetheless bear a risk you wouldn’t if your friend upgraded.
That said I see the other side. I think the real problem with A is that the salesman’s actions affect others, whereas C confines things to only the motorcyclist, and so we can determine that they have accepted the risks.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.