Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision,

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Match11% picked this

   It is morally wrong for one party not to abide by its part of an agreement only if the other party abides

   This principle says it's morally wrong for one party to break an agreement only if the other party kept their end of the bargain. Here, the contractor's performance was bungled — i.e., the contractor arguably did not adequately perform. Under this principle, then, the company's breaking the no-liability agreement might not be morally wrong (because the contractor did not do its part). That conclusion is the opposite of the ethicist's. This principle doesn't support the conclusion; it works against it.

   11%
2. B

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   It is morally wrong to seek a penalty for an action for which the agent is

   This principle is about whether the agent (the contractor) can pay for the action. The stimulus says nothing about the contractor's ability to make restitution. The ethicist's conclusion isn't based on the contractor being unable to pay; it's based on the company's prior agreement not to seek payment. This principle doesn't connect to the facts that drive the conclusion.

   1%
3. C

   Bad Match3% picked this

   It is morally wrong for one person to seek to penalize another person for an action that the first person induced

   This principle requires that the first person induced the other person to perform the action. The stimulus says nothing about the company inducing the contractor to do a bungled job. Without that inducement, the principle doesn't apply. The conclusion rests on the prior agreement, not on any claim of inducement.

   3%
4. D

   Bad Match16% picked this

   It is morally wrong to ignore the terms of an agreement that was freely undertaken only if there is clear evidence that

   This principle ties moral wrongness to whether there was clear evidence of legal permissibility. The stimulus tells us a court actually ordered restitution, so the agreement to waive liability may not have been legally enforceable. Under this principle, that means the company's ignoring the agreement might be morally fine — opposite of the ethicist's conclusion. This works against the argument, not for it.

   16%
5. E

   Correct69% picked this

   It is morally wrong to seek compensation for an action performed in the context of a promise

   Why this is right

   This principle is a clean fit. The company had promised, in writing, not to hold the contractor financially liable — i.e., to forgo compensation. Then it sought compensation anyway. Apply the principle directly: seeking compensation for an action that one has promised to forgo compensation for is morally wrong. The conclusion follows. This is the principle the ethicist's argument needs.

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   69%