Question

In an effort to help prevent children from accidentally ingesting pharmaceuticals, the government passed a regulation requiring companies to put child-resistant safety caps on all pill bottles. Unfortunately, this caused people to leave their pill bottles out in plain sight or just leave the caps off the bottle so they themselves would not have to deal with it. As a result, more children were poisoned after this regulation was passed as compared to before it was passed. This is an example of which of the following?a.Association is not causation.b.the fallacy of compositionc.the use of ceteris paribus conditions in economic analysisd.Good intentions do not always lead to desirable outcomes

Answer 1

Answer:

D. Good intentions do not always lead to desirable outcomes.

Explanation:

Here in the question, it is evident that in order to protect the children from poisoning themselves, the government took a good step by passing a regulation to put child-resistance safety caps on the pill bottles.

But it is also evident that this regulation back fired and caused more casualties than before due to the non serious behavior of the general public.

Hence it can be concluded that the government put a good intention but it did not lead to the desired outcome for the government.

Hope I made myself clear buddy.

Good Luck.