Preventing Harm

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Match: harmful action4% picked this

   a rule requiring that those who wish to dig for ancient artifacts secure the permission of relevant authorities and the owners of the proposed

   If there weren't a rule that said diggers of ancient artifacts needed to get authorities' permission and land owners' permission before proceeding with the dig, would chaos result? Not really. There would potentially be trespassing on someone else's land. If you dig up someone else's land, you're causing them harm because you're damaging their property. So a law saying you need permission from a land owner before digging up their land is more like the conventional type of rule where the outlawed behavior would cause harm to others. We might tell ourselves a story about a chaotic scene in which lots of diggers show up to the same site at the same time (because there was no coordinating rule making them get a permit from the authorities first), but the idea of a "traffic accident" with archaeological diggers is a stretch.

   4%
2. B

   Bad Match: harmful action7% picked this

   a rule requiring that pharmacists dispense certain kinds of medications only when directed to do so by physicians’ prescriptions, rather than simply

   If this rule didn't exist, then pharmacists could sell medicine to customers based on customer request. That could potentially lead to customers being harmed, if they requested medications that would harmful to them. So this rule seems to still be grounded in a pretty direct sense of potential harm to others. Pharmacists are forbidden from giving customers any mediation requested because such an action could directly lead to harming others.

   7%
3. C

   Bad Match: harmful action3% picked this

   a rule requiring that advertisers be able to substantiate the claims they make in advertisements, rather than simply saying whatever they think

   Again, this rule seems to prevent an action that could potentially be harmful to others. It prevents advertisers from making up anything they want. Saying something untrue in an advertisement seems inherently bad, whereas we're trying to match up with a situation where driving on the left side of the road does not seem inherently bad.

   3%
4. D

   Weak Match: harmless action13% picked this

   a rule requiring that employees of a certain restaurant all wear identical uniforms during their hours of employment, rather than

   This answer definitely provides us with a literal coordination rule (the employees are coordinating their outfits). But there doesn't seem to be any inherent danger in not having a rule. If we don't have a coordinating rule for which side of the road to drive on, then car accidents could be more likely. But if we don't have a coordinating rule for what employees wear to work, do we really have any bigger threat of harm?

   13%
5. E

   Correct72% picked this

   a rule requiring different aircraft to fly at different altitudes rather than flying at any

   Why this is right

   This has the most similarity to the driving situation. If we didn't draw lanes on the road and tell drivers which side they have to drive on, then cars could go anywhere and crashes would be much more frequent. Similarly, if we don't establish "lanes" in the sky and tell pilots which altitude they have to fly at, then planes could go anywhere and crashes would be more frequent. There's nothing inherently dangerous about a private plane flying at 30,000 ft., but there is something dangerous about not having any rule to coordinate the flow of air travel.

   Skill tested: Analogy · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   72%