Question

already got it—which might, of course, make us react badly to new laws, even when they are really an improvement over what we’ve got. and there are more.
the crucial point is that in some situations it’s just difficult for us to take in the relevant information and choose accordingly. it’s not quite the simple ignorance mill was talking about, but it turns out that our minds are more complicated than mill imagined.
like the guy about to step through the hole in the bridge, we need help.
is it always a mistake when someone does something imprudent, when, in this case, a person chooses to chug 32 ounces of soda? no. for some people, that’s the right choice. they don’t care that much about their health, or they won’t drink too many big sodas, or they just really love having a lot of soda at once.
but laws have to be sensitive to the needs of the majority. that doesn’t mean laws should trample the rights of the minority, but that public benefit is a legitimate concern, even when that may inconvenience some.
so do these laws mean that some people will be kept from doing what they really want to do? probably—and yes, in many ways it hurts to be part of a society governed by laws, given that laws aren’t designed for each one of us individually. some of us can drive safely at 90 miles per hour, but we’re bound by the same laws as the people who can’t, because individual speeding laws aren’t practical. giving up a little liberty is something we agree to when we agree to live in a democratic society that is governed by laws.
the freedom to buy a really large soda, all in one cup, is something we stand to lose here. for most people, given their desire for health, that results in a net gain. for some people, yes, it’s an absolute loss. it’s just not much of a loss.
of course, what people fear is that this is just the beginning: today it’s soda, tomorrow it’s the guy standing behind you making you eat your broccoli, floss your teeth, and watch pbs newshour every day. what this ignores is that successful paternalistic laws are done on the basis of a cost - benefit analysis: if it’s too painful, it’s not a good law. making these analyses is something the government has the resources to do, just as now it sets automobile construction standards while considering both the need for affordability and the desire for safety.

1. pbs newshour television news program in the united states.
2. paternalistic (puh tuhr nuh lihs tihk) adj. protective, but controlling, in the manner of a parent.

close read
annotate: in paragraph 14, mark the example the author uses to support her claim.
question: why might the author have chosen this specific example as support?
conclude: how does the inclusion of this example affect the author’s argument?

Explanation:

The author uses the example of speed - limits in paragraph 14. Some can drive safely at 90 mph but are bound by the same laws as those who can't because individual - specific speeding laws aren't practical. This example supports the claim that in a democratic society governed by laws, we give up a little liberty for the greater good. It shows that laws are made for the majority and sometimes restrict individual freedoms for public benefit. It strengthens the author's argument about the balance between individual rights and public welfare in the context of law - making.

Answer:

The example of speed - limits is used. It supports the claim that in a democratic society, we give up some liberty for the public good as laws are made for the majority and not for each individual. It strengthens the author's argument about the balance between individual rights and public welfare in law - making.