PT158 S3 Q25 ExplanationA government is justified in interfering

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match18% picked this

   Jerry's hobby, making home movies, does not harm anyone, nor does it increase the likelihood of harm to anyone. He does it because he

   This judgment concludes that the government is NOT justified in interfering with Jerry's hobby. The answer explicitly states that making home movies "does not harm anyone, nor does it increase the likelihood of harm." Since criterion 1 (increases likelihood of physical harm to others) is not met, the principle does not apply, and the judgment that no interference is warranted could be consistent with the principle. However, this answer reaches a "not justified" conclusion, and the principle only tells us when interference IS justified — it does not tell us when it is NOT justified. More fundamentally, this answer does not demonstrate the principle in action because the triggering conditions are not met. An answer that conforms to the principle should show the principle being applied: criteria met → interference justified.

   18%
2. B

   No Criterion #14% picked this

   It is well known that a property is aesthetically less pleasing when neighboring properties have unkempt lawns. My neighbor often forgets to mow his

   This answer discusses a property being aesthetically less pleasing when neighboring properties are poorly maintained. The harm described is aesthetic — reduced property appearance — not physical harm to others. The principle specifically requires that the action increase the likelihood of PHYSICAL harm to others. Aesthetic displeasure, property value impacts, or general unpleasantness do not constitute physical harm. Without establishing criterion 1 (physical harm to others), the principle's conditions are not met, and this judgment does not conform to the principle regardless of what it concludes about government interference.

   4%
3. C

   Fails Both Criteria7% picked this

   Because a motorcyclist who is not wearing a helmet is much more likely to suffer a serious head injury in the event of an

   A motorcyclist not wearing a helmet increases the risk of harm to THE MOTORCYCLIST, not to others. The principle requires that the action increase the likelihood of physical harm to OTHERS. Self-harm is not covered. The action of riding without a helmet primarily endangers the rider, not bystanders. Additionally, the answer does not establish the motorcyclist's motivation, so criterion 2 (not motivated by desire to help others) is neither satisfied nor addressed. Without establishing that others face increased physical harm, this judgment does not trigger the principle's conditions.

   7%
4. D

   Fails Criterion #19% picked this

   Because Zabziew Pharmaceutical Corporation's research is motivated by the desire to make profits and not by the desire to benefit customers, it has been

   Zabziew Pharmaceutical Corporation's research is described as "motivated by the desire to make profits that will allow it to expand its work" — not by a desire to help others. However, the answer also notes the research is pharmaceutical, which could be seen as helping others through medical advances. More critically, the answer needs to establish criterion 1 (the action increases likelihood of physical harm to others), and pharmaceutical research alone does not obviously do this unless the research itself creates dangerous conditions. The situation described here is ambiguous on both the harm-to-others criterion and the motivation criterion, making it a poor match for the principle. Most importantly, the answer does not clearly establish that the research increases the likelihood of physical harm to others.

   9%
5. E

   Correct61% picked this

   To further her own political ambitions, Jill wanted to give a speech advocating the use of violence to achieve political ends. But her speech

   Why this is right

   Jill wants to give a speech advocating the use of a dangerous pesticide to further her OWN political ambitions. Check both criteria: Criterion 1 — does this increase the likelihood of physical harm to others? Yes. Advocating for a dangerous pesticide could lead to its adoption, which would physically harm others through pesticide exposure. Criterion 2 — is the action NOT motivated by a desire to help others? Yes. Jill's motivation is explicitly her own political ambitions, not a desire to help anyone. Both conditions of the principle are met: the action risks physical harm to others, and the motivation is self-serving rather than altruistic. The principle therefore applies, and the government is justified in interfering with Jill's speech advocating the dangerous pesticide. This judgment conforms perfectly to the principle.

   Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   61%