Unreachable conclusion. (A) concludes that the government is UNjustified. But the principle tells us when the government IS JUSTIFIED in interfering. It does not allow us to prove that the government is not justified. (If you think it does, you’re confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.)

Missing trigger. The evidence does not establish that the neighbor’s action increases the chance of physical harm to others, or that it is not motivated by a desire to help others.

Missing trigger. The evidence does not establish that the motorcylist’s action increases the chance of physical harm to OTHERS. Although it establishes that failing to wear a helmet increases chance of harm to the motorcyclist himself, that doesn’t imply any increase in chance of harm to others.

Missing trigger. The evidence does not establish that Zabziew’s actions increase the chance of physical harm to others. Merely being of little help to people with illness does not constitute an increase in the chance of physical harm to those people.

The evidence establishes that Jill’s speech is not motivated by a desire to help others (because the purpose is to further her own political ambitions). It also establishes that Jill’s speech increases the chance of physical harm to others (because “people would have gotten hurt”). So the principle allows us to conclude that the government was justified in interfering with Jill’s speech.