shekhar.kataria wrote:Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and non-smokers
on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private
sector that cannot be justified. The fact that studies indicate that non-smokers
might be harmed by inhaling the smoke from others' cigarettes is not the main
issue. Rather, the main issue concerns the government's violation of the right of
private businesses to determine their own policies and rule.

Which one of the following is principle that, if accepted, could enable the conclusion
to be properly drawn?

(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses is
justified only when individuals might be harmed.
(B) The right of individuals to breathe safe air supersedes the right of businesses to
be free from government intrusion.
(C) The right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right or duty
the government may have to protect the individual
(D) It is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the
workplace.
(E) Where the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict, the main
issue is finding a successful compromise.


Correct answer C . Please provide explanations why B is wrong ?

jen@knewton wrote:The conclusion here states: "the main issue concerns the government's violation of the right of
private businesses to determine their own policies and rule." Additionally, the argument says that harm to others via second-hand smoke is NOT the main issue. So, the argument is essentially saying that the rights of private businesses are MORE IMPORTANT than the risk of harm to individuals.

Answer choice B reverses this prioritization, saying that the rights of individuals to breathe safe air is MORE IMPORTANT (supersedes) the rights of private businesses.

The key thing here is to see the author's prioritization of the rights of private businesses over individual safety. Hope that helps!