Read the passage from “Moral Dilemma Could Limit Appeal of Driverless Cars.”

Self-driving cars are just around the corner. Such vehicles will make getting from one place to another safer and less stressful. They also could cut down on traffic, reduce pollution and limit accidents. But how should driverless cars handle emergencies? People disagree on the answer. And that might put the brakes on this technology, a new study concludes.

To understand the challenge, imagine a car that suddenly meets some pedestrians in the road. Even with braking, it’s too late to avoid a collision. So the car’s artificial intelligence must decide whether to swerve. To save the pedestrians, should the car veer off the road or swerve into oncoming traffic? What if such options would likely kill the car’s driver?

What is the author’s claim in this passage?


(A) Driverless cars should be designed to protect pedestrians instead of drivers and passengers.
(B) Disagreement over whom driverless cars should protect could prevent further research on the technology.
(C) Driverless cars should not be made if people cannot agree on whom the cars should protect.
(D) Driverless cars should be designed to protect drivers and passengers instead of pedestrians.