OG 14

14. Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks. As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?

A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.

B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.

C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.

D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.

E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.

疑问，知道应该攻击，说没带保险带而伤害到他人的选项。但是，正确答案B的选项似乎看不出有说伤害到他人的说法。我的翻译：汽车保险率对汽车拥有者来说更高，因为需要付没有带保险带而受伤或死亡的人的赔款。

这里的people为什么不能理解为开车的人呢？不知道哪里理解错了。请指教。

文章的结构:

自由社会->take risks(只要不损害别人)->安全带自由

断桥(损害别人)

因为安全带的人受伤->保费增加->损害别人

insurance rates 是保险费的意思

rate 當錢時, 用forà soaring rates for insurance.

Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners

当率时用of

你是说B里的people? 它后面不是有定语修饰吗，是  没有系安全带的人  啊

我再翻译一下：

保险费对于所有汽车的拥有者来说更高，因为（他们）需要对没有带安全带而受伤或者死亡的人付赔偿费。

也就是说这里的people应该不是指汽车拥有者而且是其他人，开车的人需要为其他人来付赔偿费，那也可以推理是伤害到其他人了。从而实现断桥？

不知道现在分析得是否正确了。

我对正解(B)没有问题

我想问一下答案(E)

答案(E)说没系安全带的乘客受伤率比有系安全带的乘客高

这样难道不能理解成开车的人造成没系安全带的乘客受伤率比较高吗？

因为乘客是没办法自己选择要不要受伤的

所以这样的理解没办法weaken吗？

还是我的逻辑有误？

请指教……