PrepTest 91+, Section 2, Question 25
A government is justified in interfering with a person's action if the action would increase the likelihood of physical harm to others and the action is not motivated by a desire to help others.
A government is justified in interfering with a person's action if the action would increase the likelihood of physical harm to others and the action is not motivated by a desire to help others.
A government is justified in interfering with a person's action if the action would increase the likelihood of physical harm to others and the action is not motivated by a desire to help others.
A government is justified in interfering with a person's action if the action would increase the likelihood of physical harm to others and the action is not motivated by a desire to help others.
Of the following judgments, which one most closely conforms to the principle above?
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 thinks that it will benefit his children by preserving a record of their childhoods. So the government is unjustified in interfering with Jerry's moviemaking.
It is well known that a property is aesthetically less pleasing when neighboring properties have unkempt lawns. My neighbor often forgets to mow his lawn for several weeks. The city council, therefore, is justified in fining my neighbor for not mowing his lawn more frequently.
Because a motorcyclist who is not wearing a helmet is much more likely to suffer a serious head injury in the event of an accident, the government is justified in requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.
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 of little help to people suffering from serious illness. So the government is justified in suspending Zabziew's license to test new drugs.
To further her own political ambitions, Jill wanted to give a speech advocating the use of violence to achieve political ends. But her speech would most likely have caused a riot and people would have gotten hurt. Hence, the government was justified in preventing her from giving her speech.
Explanations
0 Comments