IM – 1 | 6
Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill
Education.
they are not, then the disadvantage to the groups affected by Proposition 209 is just a
formality—not that one can’t stand on principle and oppose it anyway, of course.)
8. ▲To avoid inconsistency, Harold would have to identify a relevant difference between the
discrimination law and the marijuana law. In fact, there is one fairly obvious one to which
9. This is a tough one for many people, including us. We think dogs and people have enough
in common—the very things Chloe mentions—to warrant prohibition of experiments on
dogs unless there is a reason to believe that some considerable good will come of the
10. It seems to us that Mr. Bork has a couple of possible answers: First, he might say that the
11. This passage pits one value—that of consistency and fairness—against another: the
occasional importance of being able to change policies. If it is no longer feasible to
continue a policy, it may be that people can no longer be treated the same as others have
12. We can think of reasons that might be relevant here. If, for example, it were shown that
polygamous marriages produced more jealousy and hence more unhappiness or discord in
a family, this would be a reason that would not apply to same-sex marriages and would
help Heinz justify his position. On the other hand, of course, one might require very strong
reasons in order to overcome the general claim that people ought to be able to marry