What if people who assign to themself easy task really think that this is fair? And what if another group really think that assigning easy task is unfair? In this case we can say that experiment was wrong because we pick wrong people in groups (selective bias). Therefore conclusion is wrong: people don't apply weaker moral standards to themselves.

But if people from first group were placed in second group and said that assigning easy task to themself is wrong, than conclusion is correct: people change moral standard according to situation.


(A) At least some volunteers who said they had acted fairly in choosing the easy task would have said that it was unfair for someone else to do so.
This answer gives us example in which people from first group change their mind according to situation.

(B) The most moral choice for the volunteers would have been to have the computer assign the two tasks randomly.
we don't need to decide what is most moral choice.

(C) There were at least some volunteers who were assigned to do the hard task and felt that the assignment was unfair.
We need to know about people who made assignment and not about who was assigned.

(D) On average, the volunteers to whom the scenario was described were more accurate in their moral judgments than the other volunteers were.
This variant is tricky because it is easy weakener and we tend to pick it in case when we forget about question.
This is weakener because if first group was inaccurate then they didn't lye but just was inaccurate. So we can infer that first group do not apply weaker moral standards to themselves.

(E) At least some volunteers given the choice between assigning the tasks themselves and having the computer assign them felt that they had made the only fair choice available to them.
The main question how they named their actions later, not what they think before making of choice