Marie:
- I did not trick, threaten, or physically force to get money
→
Not morally wrong to keep money
Julia:
- A similar situation (the jacket example) with the same principles applied would elicit an opposite conclusion
→
Marie's argument is nonsensical
Before going into the answer choices, we should have a very good idea of what the right answer would look like. So let's think about this. The right answer, showing the "role" of Julia's statement, would probably both say that Julia (1) offers a similar situation or analogy that corresponds with Marie's principles and (2) that she uses this analogy to question - or even disagree with - Marie's assertion.
Now we are set for the answer choices.
(A) Julia never "questions" Marie's application that case. She does however say that the principle is "nonsense," clearly showing that Julia never "accepts that principle." (A) is wrong for that reason alone.
(B) No! Julia's response gives a reason to reject Marie's conclusion! She does this by giving an analogy that, while having the same sufficient condition of Marie's principle, does not entail Marie' conclusion.
(C) "It challenges Marie's conclusion..." is a very good start! We know that Julia does this. This answer choice also gives us discussion of "a relevantly similar situation" that would "draw the opposite of Marie's conclusion." Yes! This is exactly what Julia does! She does challenge, she does offer a similar situation, she does show how this situation would entail the opposite of Marie's conclusion. Very good! Now let's look at the others to just make sure.
(D) Julia never faces this problem. She is merely offering a hypothetical! Also, why would Julia use Marie's example to help her solve a problem? Julia doesn't even agree with Marie! This answer choice is no good!
(E) There are two things wrong with this: (1) is that Julia never offers a new principle. She instead comments upon Marie's principle. (2) is that Julia doesn't exactly "reserve judgment." While Julia never says "you are wrong and I hate you," she does say that Marie's principle is "nonsense."