Question ID:PT76 S4 Q11 Passage:A person who knowingly brings about misfortune should be blamed for it. However, in some cases a person who unwittingly brings about misfortune should not be blamed for it. For example, a person should never be blamed for unwittingly bringing about misfortune if the person could not reasonably have foreseen it. Stem:The principles above, if valid, most help to justify the reasoning in which one of the following? Correct Answer Choice:BChoice A:Although he would have realized it if he had thought about it, it did not occur to Riley that parking his car in the center lane of Main Street could lead to a traffic accident. So, if a traffic accident does result from Riley's parking his car in the center lane of Main Street, he should not be blamed for it. Choice B:Oblicek had no idea that suggesting to her brother that he take out a loan to expand his business was likely to cause the business to go bankrupt, nor could she have reasonably foreseen this. So, if the loan does cause her brother's business to go bankrupt, Oblicek should not be blamed for it. Choice C:Gougon had no reason to think that serving the hollandaise sauce would make his guests ill, but he was concerned that it might. Thus, if the hollandaise sauce does make Gougon's guests ill, Gougon should be blamed for it. Choice D:When Dr. Fitzpatrick gave his patient the wrong medicine, he did not know that it would cause the patient to experience greatly increased blood pressure. So, if no one else knowingly did anything that contributed to the patient's increase in blood pressure, no one other than Dr. Fitzpatrick is to blame for it.                                            Choice E:Any reasonable person could have foreseen that dropping a lit cigarette in dry leaves would start a fire. Thus, even if Kapp did not realize this, she is to blame for starting a fire on Rodriguez's farm since she dropped a lit cigarette in dry leaves there.