Q26

[Nina]

Why is D incorrect?

Thanks a lot!

[tommywallach]

Hey Nina,

To answer this question, it's important to understand the example given in the second paragraph.

The point relates to drivers and the law that forces them all onto one side of the road. What's interesting about this example is that the rule doesn't directly mitigate harm; instead, the LACK of a rule creates harm. Thus there has to be a rule in order to prevent harm. We need another example where the only reason for the rule is because the LACK of any rule creates harm.

(A) Digging on the land of someone who owned it would do direct harm. No match.

(B) Again, this could do direct harm, because people could buy medicine that was bad for them.

(C) Again, this is pretty direct. If salespeople can lie, direct harm is done.

(D) This has no harm at all. Yes, there's a similarity in terms of driving on the same side and wearing the same clothes, but there's no danger or risk if the rule isn't put into place.

(E) In this case, the lack of a law would create major problems, because there could be in-air collisions, similar to the on-the-road collisions you'd have in a car.

Hope that helps!

-t

[vivianabro]

Hi,
For B, wouldn't the LACK of a rule "requiring pharmacists to dispense medications only when directed by physicians' prescriptions" cause harm as well?

Thank you

[tommywallach]

Not inherently, no. It could, if they prescribed terrible drugs all the time, but it isn't inherently bad the way that having people in both lanes is inherently bad.

-t