Passage Summary: Someone lied to two different people; they apologized to the first person, so the second person thinks they deserve an apology too.

Conclusion: Hagerle is obligated to provide a sincere apology to the counselor.

Reasoning: Hagerle apologized to a physician for a specific lie, and since that same lie was told to the counselor, the counselor is also entitled to an apology.

Analysis: This Principle Justify question requires a rule that makes the counselor's demand logical. The counselor is essentially arguing for a rule of consistency: if you apologize to one person for a specific lie, you are required to apologize to everyone else you told that same lie to. It's a very 'fairness-based' argument. Look for a principle that links the act of apologizing to one victim of a lie with a requirement to apologize to all victims of that same lie.