Kathryn had no legal obligation to reveal the secret. So, it wasn’t morally right to reveal the secret. (A) validly uses the first principle.

Unreachable conclusion. Neither principle allows us to conclude that an action is morally right. (And no, the contrapositive of the first principle doesn’t allow us to conclude that something is morally right. The contrapositive of the first principle tells us that IF it’s morally right to reveal a secret then .... That never helps us prove that something is morally right. If you think it does, you’re confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.)

Doesn’t trigger the second principle. We don’t know that Judy promised not to reveal the secret. We also don’t know that revealing the secret was “likely” to harm her father.

Unreachable conclusion. Neither principle allows us to conclude that an action is morally right. (And no, the contrapositive of the first principle doesn’t allow us to conclude that something is morally right. The contrapositive of the first principle tells us that IF it’s morally right to reveal a secret then .... That never helps us prove that something is morally right. If you think it does, you’re confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.)

Unreachable conclusion. Neither principle allows us to conclude that an action is morally right. (And no, the contrapositive of the first principle doesn’t allow us to conclude that something is morally right. The contrapositive of the first principle tells us that IF it’s morally right to reveal a secret then .... That never helps us prove that something is morally right. If you think it does, you’re confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.)