PrepTest 148, Section 2, Question 6

Tricky, but no. This could be true—that individuals value their own preferences more than strangers'—while those same individuals simultaneously believe that everyone should still get the minimal-viable amount of primary goods. In other words, I can want things for myself more than I want them for you while still believing you should have what you need to survive.

Nope, but also tricky. Rawls's theory is just that—a theory. It's not dealing with practical implications, so even if this invalidates the sufficient condition presented by the claim, it presents a theoretical weakener at best.

Yeah, this would do it. Remember, the claim suggests we need a minimum-viable amount of each primary good. But if we're willing to give up all of one such good, even if it means getting a ton of all the others, then we don't care about a minimum-viable amount of the sacrificed good. This would invalidate the claim.

Nah. I'm sure this is true, and I bet Rawls would agree that it's true. Even so, it wouldn't weaken the idea that anyone in the original position would want a minimum-viable amount of primary goods for all.

Nope. Like D, this is probably true and Rawls may even agree. Even if we overestimate resources and underestimate needs, in the original position, we could still believe everyone should get a sufficient amount of primary goods. We'd just be underestimating that amount.