Self-paced
Students in a college ethics class were asked to judge whether two magazines had been morally delinquent in publishing a particular classified advertisement that was highly offensive in its demeaning portrayal of some people. ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██████████████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ ███ █████████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████ ████████ ██████ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████████
Summarize Argument
Most students conclude that the first magazine, but not the second, was morally delinquent for publishing the advertisement. We aren't told why the students think this. We just know that the only information the students have about the magazines are their policies on publishing advertisements.
Notable Assumptions
We know that both magazines published a highly offensive advertisement. For some reason, the students conclude that the first magazine was morally delinquent for this, while the second wasn't. They might be assuming that since the first magazine has a policy of reviewing advertisements to check if they are offensive, that magazine was delinquent either because it didn't find the advertisement offensive, or because it violated its principle by publishing it anyway. While the second magazine did not violate its principle by publishing an offensive advertisement, the students are also assuming that the principle of publishing any advertisement received from subscribers is not in itself morally delinquent.
26.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ███ █████████ █████████████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████████
a
It is wrong ██ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███████
This doesn't justify the students' judgment. We're not told that the advertisement could necessarily cause harm to innocent people. Even if it could, this criticism would apply to both magazines, not just to the first one.
b
Anyone regularly transmitting ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █ █████ ██████████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████████
This applies to both magazines. It doesn't justify the students' judgment that only the first magazine was morally delinquent.
c
If two similar ██████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ███████████████
This would suggest that the students' judgment is incorrect. Both magazines committed the same action, so they should be judged the same way. But most students think only the first magazine did something morally wrong.
d
Failure to uphold █ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ █ █████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████ █████████
This helps justify the students' judgment. Since the first magazine committed to screening out offensive advertisements and failed to do so, that magazine committed a moral failing. Since the other magazine didn't commit to that standard, it did not necessarily commit a moral failure.
e
A magazine should ███ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ █ ██████████ █████████████ ██ ████ █████████████ █████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████████
Irrelevant. We don't know anything about who the magazines' subscribers are, and whether they would be offended by the advertisement or not.