(E) says, "when considering a possible course of action, it is usually a relatively easy task to weigh the costs and benefits associated with that action"
The problem with (E) is that neither speaker discusses the ease or difficulty of weighing costs and benefits of actions, so we can get rid of this choice.
(C) says, "the judicial duty to be candid is justified regardless of whether following that duty produces good outcomes"
Passage A's author says that it's wrong for judges to lie because their lying would conflict with moral principles. Passage A's author supports judicial candor because she thinks it's the right thing to do. Passage B's author, on the other hand, supports judicial candor because a lack of candor would be a detriment to the judiciary. For Passage B's author, the main concern is the cost-benefit analysis. Thus, Passage B's reasoning for supporting judicial candor is contingent upon the fact that judicial candor helps create positive outcomes and a lack of judicial candor results in negative outcomes. The authors would definitely disagree over (C), so it's the correct answer choice.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
SawyerJeppsonJuly 27, 2021
Hello, why would answer choice D be wrong? I understood that author of passage A is grounded in the idea of a moral obligation to be candid, but author of passage B is concerned with cost-benefit analysis. So wouldn't it make sense that the authors of passage A and B would disagree on candidness as a general rule in life outside a legal setting? Or does the fact that it is outside a legal setting make it out of scope?
