Passage Summary: A philosopher claims that if an action helps people, it's right, and if it hurts people, it's wrong; therefore, if it does neither, it's still right.

Conclusion: Actions that are expected to have a neutral effect on aggregate well-being are considered morally right.

Reasoning: The philosopher defines 'right' as increasing well-being and 'wrong' as strictly reducing well-being.

Analysis: There is a logical gap between 'not wrong' and 'right.' The premise establishes that only actions reducing well-being are wrong, which implies neutral actions are not wrong, but it doesn't automatically make them right. To guarantee the conclusion, we need an assumption that any action that is not morally wrong must be morally right. Look for an answer that bridges this binary gap.