The question in this section is based on the passage. The question is to be answered on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. For the question, more than one of the choices could conceivably answer the question. However, you are to choose the best answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answer the question.
Most people acknowledge that not all governments have a moral right to govern and that there are sometimes morally legitimate reasons for disobeying the law, as when a particular law prescribes behaviour that is clearly immoral. It is also commonly supposed that such cases are special exceptions and that, in general, the fact that something is against the law counts as a moral, as well as legal, ground for not doing it; i.e., we generally have a moral duty to obey a low simply because it is the law. But the theory known as philosophical anarchism denies this view, arguing instead that people who live under the jurisdiction of governments have no moral duty to those governments to obey their laws. Some commentators have rejected this position because of what they take to be its highly counter-intuitive' implications:
(a) that no existing government is morally better than any other (since all are, in a sense, equally illegitimate), and
(b) that, lacking any moral obligation to obey any laws, people may do as they please without scruple. In fact, however, philosophical anarchism does not entail these claims.
First, the conclusion that no government is morally better than any other does not follow from the claim that nobody owes moral obedience to any government. Even if one denies that there is a moral obligation to follow the laws of any government, one can still evaluate the morality of the policies and actions of various governments. Some governments do more good than harm, and others more harm than good, to their subjects. Some violate the moral rights of individuals more regularly, systematically, and seriously than others. in short, it is perfectly consistent with philosophical anarchism to hold that governments vary widely in their moral stature.
If Z was the second suspect to confess, then each of the following statements could be true EXCEPT:
T did not confess.
V did not confess.
Y did not confess.
Y did not confess.
Using the conditions we can infer that exactly two confess after T which leaves us with 5, 6 and 7, Also using the conditions 5 and 6 we can say that W can not be placed before T. Now following combinations are possible.