Passage Summary: Students judged the magazine that tried to be a gatekeeper more harshly than the one that just let everything through without checking.

Conclusion: The first magazine was morally delinquent for publishing an offensive ad, while the second magazine was not.

Reasoning: The first magazine claimed to screen and reject offensive ads, whereas the second magazine had a policy of publishing everything from its subscribers.

Analysis: The students' judgment seems to hinge on the idea of 'assumed responsibility.' Because the first magazine told the public it would filter out bad content, it is held to a higher standard when it fails to do so. The second magazine made no such promise, so it gets a pass. To justify this, we need a principle that states something like: if you voluntarily take on the duty to prevent something bad, you are more responsible for it happening than someone who never took on that duty. Look for an answer that connects the act of screening to an increased moral obligation.