Ditto to cacrv567. Carl doesn't talk about either "aesthetic quality" or "increasing the accessibility of...plays". Could we get some further explanation of B vs. D?

I read the stimulus as:

Lyle - We can learn from the plays even if the aesthetic quality of the original is gone.

Carl - No we can't. The whole pedagogical value of the plays is tied up in the original language.

Ok, I need some clarification into B and C please.

I got hung up on (B) because "other moral principles" seems so general to me.

It seems like the problem wants us to assume that the other principles are something along the lines of 'always help the police' or 'be honest' or 'assist in justice' or something like that. But, what if there is another overriding principle, and it's "obstruct the police always"?

The problem doesn't give any boundaries to what the other principles are, except that other principles exist. What if the overriding moral principle was 'obtain hot dogs at all costs (even if you have to harm your family)'.

Then we have a widely recognized moral principle that would override an obligation to protect family member from harm (should the two conflict), but it has nothing to do with whether or not you should hide them from the police.

Could someone help clarify this for me?

-----

Ok, also thoughts on (C) and where I think I went wrong and how I came out on the other side. I haven't seen anyone articulate this issue with C so maybe this will help someone in the future.

I thought the second conclusion was a little shaky with assuming that:

hiding an innocent person from the police = obstructing the police in their work.

(Actually, it kind of seems like, if you know the person is innocent, aren't you helping the police if you prevent them from tracking down the wrong person?)

So, the question says:

If you do [not] allow police to find innocent person ---> Then you're obstructing justice

If you're [not] obstructing justice --> Then you do allow police to find innocent person

^ This is basically what C says, but C gets a little to aggressive and misstates "not obstruct" as "assists" -- which is not the logical opposite.

Is it fair to say that if C had read: "presumes that allowing the police to arrest an innocent person is not an obstruction of justice" then it would have been right?

(Another error in C: C mistakenly restates 'police work' as 'justice')

"They could just linger on... in some.. sad... state...."

Haha

Oh I see! Thank you! If we check that box, are we locked into the old problem sets, or can we toggle between the two?

Thank you again for your help!

Hey sorry about this. You said we could find the old problem sets if we went to Account? Maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't see an option for the old problem sets. Could someone help me out please?

Thank you!

PS - And thank you for the hard work in updating them!