OG上的一道逻辑问题，求解

sirrockyUID: 134075

No.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.

OG上的答案是B，为什么？ 我没明白。

whoeverioeUID: 170170

B shows that "right to take risks" in the case of seat belt fastening does harm others, (car owners pay higher premiums cos passengers do not wear seat belt) and therefore weakens the conclusion.

sirrockyUID: 134075

有点明白了。多谢。

ianhwangUID: 162946

应该是 B，反对者意见是不带安全带也不损害他人利益，而 B 是提出会导致他人多花保险费，weaken 了反对意见。

没考过 GMAT，不过这题目看起来和 GRE 的逻辑怎么倍象？