Gryphon wrote:
I also "fell" for A. IMO, A and B are saying the same thing. In A it is implied that nothing be done so that the rights of law-abiding citizens are not infringed upon. In B, they just come out and say it.
New legislation would require a seven-day waiting period in the sale of handguns to private individuals, in order that records of prisons could be checked and the sale of handguns to people likely to hurt other people thereby prevented. People opposed to this legislation claim that prison records are so full of errors that the proposed law would prevent as many
law-abiding citizens as
criminals from having access to handguns.
If the claim made by people opposed to the new legislation is true, which one of the following is a principle that, if established, would do the most to justify opposition to the new legislation on the basis of that claim?
(A) The
rights of law-abiding citizens are
more worthy of protection than are the rights of criminals.
(B) Nothing should be done to restrict
potential criminals at the cost of placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens.
A talks about the protection of rights of law-abiding citizens against the rights of criminals. This passage is solely in connection with LEGISLATION and not rights or protection or bla bla..
POTENTIAL is the key word in B. Law abiding citizens could be potential criminals
however Potential criminals need not necessarily turn into true criminals. The idea is not to restrict potential criminals who
coincidentally may be law abiding citizens
(as stated in option B). In this way
actual law abiding citizens would not be prevented from having access to handguns.
There4 B is correct