Hi pandeyvineet24,
well, haven't seen this one, but I think the answer should be B. The bicyclists' argument is that the regulation requiring them to wear helmets ought to be removed because it is aimed at a harm that only the bicyclists would suffer.
In other words, the bicyclists are saying: "hey, only we would be hurt, and we should be allowed to do what we want with ourselves so long as it does not harm anyone else, so get rid of the helmet-rule."
The bicyclists are assuming that the only kind of harm that could exist (without the helmet regulation) is physical harm; that third parties won't be harmed b/c they won't be physically harmed. We need to find a choice that attacks this assumption.
Choice B does a fine job of that. Lawyers are warning that (without the helmet-rule) everyone would have to pay more. Everyone else is a third party, and they would definitely be hurt if they had to pay more. Wunderlitch park would now be able to use this information to respond effectively against the bicyclists' claim:
"You say that if we get rid of the helmet-rule only you would be hurt, but lawyers are telling us that without the helmet rule everyone would have to pay more."
Now, had the bicyclists said "we are the only ones who can be physically injured" it would have been different from "hurt" to a "third party".
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
