Parents set curfew times to keep their children from staying out late and protect them from harm. Teenagers try to sneak out of their houses because of curfews. There would be no reason for teenagers to sneak out if there were no curfews. Teenagers would be less likely to come to harm if there were no curfews because the most likely source of harm to teenagers is sneaking out after curfew. Which of the following is the best statement of the flaw in the argument above?A. Parents cannot prevent teenagers from encountering harm. B. If there were no curfews, teenagers would be less likely to encounter harm. C. If teenagers did not want to stay out late there would be no need for curfews.

I believe the option that best states the flaw in the argument is letter B. If there were no curfews, teenagers would be less likely to encounter harm.

Explanation:

According to the argument, teenagers come to harm because they sneak out after curfews and, therefore, if there were no curfews, no harm would happen. That is a very flawed logic. Curfew or no curfew, there is harm in staying out too late. A teenager who is under a curfew time and a teenager who is free to come and go as he pleases are both likely to encounter harm by staying out late. Curfews exist because harm exists, not the other way around.

you probably know the answer. stop asking stupid questions and making me waste my time. j.k. ; )   b.t.w. what are three ratios equivalent to 5 : 11? thx

yes he did writing dots to make the answer