PT141.S3.P4.Q27 > Explanation

Hide analysis

It is generally believed that while in some cases government should intervene to protect people from risk—by imposing air safety standards, for example—in other cases, such as mountain climbing, the onus should be on the individual to protect himself or herself. …

Intro to Topic · When should governments intervene to protect people from risk?

Sometimes it's the government's responsibility to mitigate risk, e.g., airplane safety. Other times, it's a personal responsibility, e.g., mountain climbing.

In the eyes of the public at large, the demarcation between the two kinds of cases has mainly to do with whether the risk in question is incurred voluntarily. This distinction between voluntary and involuntary risk may in fact be the chief difference between lay and expert judgments about risk. Policy experts tend to focus on aggregate lives at stake; laypeople care a great deal whether a risk is undertaken voluntarily. …

Two Competing Criteria · Laypeople v. policy experts

When should governments intervene? Laypeople: whether the risk was involuntarily. Policy experts: aggregate lives at stake.

However, judgments about whether a risk is "involuntary" often stem from confusion and selective attention, and the real reason for such judgments frequently lies in an antecedent judgment of some other kind. They are thus of little utility in guiding policy decisions.

Critique · Laypeople wrong; voluntary is not helpful to guide policy decisions

Judgments about whether a risk is "voluntary" or not is often based on confusion and selective attetion.

First, it is not easy to determine when a risk is voluntarily incurred. Although voluntariness may be entirely absent in the case of an unforeseeable collision with an asteroid, with most environmental, occupational, and other social risks, it is not an all-or-nothing matter, but rather one of degree. Risks incurred by airline passengers are typically thought to be involuntary, since passengers have no control over whether a plane is going to crash. But they can choose airlines on the basis of safety records or choose not to fly. In characterizing the risks as involuntary, people focus on a small part of a complex interaction, not the decision to fly, but the accident when it occurs.

Premise for Critique · Voluntary v. involuntary distinction is unclear

For example, is a risk incurred by flying involuntary? Of course passengers have no control over how the plane flies but they made a choice to get on that plane.

Second, people often characterize risks as "voluntary" when they do not approve of the purpose for which people run the risks. It is unlikely that people would want to pour enormous taxpayer resources into lowering the risks associated with skydiving, even if the ratio of dollars spent to lives saved were quite good. By contrast, people would probably not object to spending enormous resources on improving the safety of firefighters, even though the decision to become a firefighter is voluntary. In short, there is no special magic in notions like "voluntary" and "involuntary." …

Premise for Critique · "Voluntary" is often just a proxy for approval

Both skydiving and firefighting are voluntary. But people tend to support government spending to mitigate the risk of firefighting but not of skydiving. Why? Because people approve of firefighting more than skydiving. So they're actually making their judgment on approval.

Therefore, regulatory policy should be guided by a better understanding of the factors that underlie judgments about voluntariness.

Sub-Conclusion · Policy decisions should look past voluntariness and into the real reasons

In general, the government should attempt to save as many lives as it can, subject to the limited public and private resources devoted to risk reduction. Departures from this principle should be justified not by invoking the allegedly voluntary or involuntary nature of a particular risk, but rather by identifying the more specific considerations for which notions of voluntariness serve as proxies.

Main Conclusion · Policy decisions should be guided how many lives can be saved

Passage Style

Critique or debate

27.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude in the passage?

Question Type

Author’s attitude

Implied

This author’s attitude question isn’t targeted toward anything specific, so it’s difficult to come up with a good anticipation. We’ll probably have to rely on process of elimination. But let’s keep in mind the author’s main point: the government should try to save as many lives as possible, subject to limited resources. They should not care about the voluntariness of activities.

chagrin at the rampant misunderstanding of the relative risks associated with various activities

The author never takes issue with people’s assessments of relative risks. What the author criticizes is their identification of some risks as voluntary or involuntary. But “relative risks associated with various activities” refers to the magnitude of risk — what’s more dangerous? It doesn’t refer to whether risks are voluntary or involuntary.

concern that policy guided mainly by laypeople's emphasis on the voluntariness of risk would lead to excessive government regulation

The author never expresses concern about too much government regulation.

skepticism about the reliability of laypeople's intuitions as a general guide to deciding government risk-management policy

This best captures the author’s attitude. She doesn’t think we should rely on laypeople’s intuitions about voluntariness when deciding risk-management policy.

62%

conviction that the sole criterion that can justify government intervention to reduce risk is the saving of human lives

Too extreme. The author doesn’t claim that this should be the “sole” criterion. The author is open to “departures from this principle,” as long as we don’t focus on the voluntary or involuntary nature of a risk.

18%

eagerness to persuade the reader that policy experts' analysis of risk is distorted by subtle biases

The author doesn’t criticize policy experts’ analysis of risks. The author criticizes laypeople’s analysis.

PrepTest 141 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Question 27

Passage explanation

Question explanation

Ask a tutor

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action