PrepTest 80, Section 2, Question 21
No occupation should be subject to a licensing requirement unless incompetence in the performance of tasks normally carried out within that occupation poses a plausible threat to human health or safety.
No occupation should be subject to a licensing requirement unless incompetence in the performance of tasks normally carried out within that occupation poses a plausible threat to human health or safety.
No occupation should be subject to a licensing requirement unless incompetence in the performance of tasks normally carried out within that occupation poses a plausible threat to human health or safety.
No occupation should be subject to a licensing requirement unless incompetence in the performance of tasks normally carried out within that occupation poses a plausible threat to human health or safety.
The principle stated above, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?
Because some of the duties that police officers carry out have no connection to human health or safety, police officers should not be subject to a licensing requirement.
Because there are no realistic circumstances in which poor work by an interior designer poses a danger to human beings, interior designers should not be subject to a licensing requirement.
Because hospital administrators routinely make decisions that affect the health of hundreds of people, hospital administrators should be subject to a licensing requirement.
Because hair stylists regularly use substances that can pose a threat to human health if handled improperly, hair stylists should be subject to a licensing requirement.
Because tattoo artists who do not maintain strict sanitation pose a serious threat to human health, tattoo artists should be subject to a licensing requirement.
0 Comments