Kerry and David are arguing about mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists. Kerry maintains that the laws are inappropriate because a motorcyclist who fails to wear one is only hurting (or risking) him/herself. David maintains that the laws are appropriate because wearing a helmet reduces the risk of a motorcyclist getting hit by a piece of road debris that causes the motorcyclist to lose control and run into someone else. Group of answer choices A. Kerry and David are both arguing from a "duty model" of morality perspective B. Kerry and David are both arguing from an "aspiration model" of morality persepctive. C. Kerry is arguing from a "duty model" of morality perspective, but David is arguing from an "aspiration model" of morality perspective. D. Kerry's argument is consistent with the "internal error" of ex post facto laws