og里面越看越糊涂，og14

tanlian

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.

题目里面得到的的conclusion是“ it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.”吗？我觉得D 和E如果true的话，不就正好说明不捆安全带很危险，不应该得出那个结论吗？但是og答案说，D 和E都confirm this concession，搞不懂了，脑袋有点大了，hoho

swlfx

D、E是说不系安全带的人自身的危险程度高，但这与对其他人的伤害并没有直接的关系，至少无法直接推出。

julia_ju

原题说，现代人在不损害他人的情况下，有权力冒险，因此不系安全带应该由个人决定。想不系就不系。

题目要weaken，说passenger自己受伤，死亡什么的，都没用。只能说损害了他人，才攻击到了他的前提。从而摧毁他的结论。

tanlian

终于想通了，其实不管是passenger还是driver，只要不计安全带，受伤的都是自己，和别人没有关系，这下我就想通了，多谢解答