Philosophy question I am trying to solve multiple sets of scenarios but I cannot wrap my head around what the instructions say to do

For each scenario fill the pattern completely: principle + descriptive claim(s) -> judgement

a. I shouldn't shoplift a candy bar from this grocery display
b. I should accurately report my income on my federal tax form

If anyone can help and answers these two so I can understand what the pattern is wanting

Answer and Explanation:

The question is saying that your judgement of a situation is made of two parts, principle and descriptive claim(s). Principle is a noun and refers to a natural, moral, legal rule or standard.  A descriptive claim is describing something by expressing how it is or could be, without offering an evaluation or opinion. So principle seems to be based more on moral code or whats lawful, while a descriptive claim is talking about the situation itself without opinions.

Part A is showing a principal. "I shouldn't shoplift a candy bar from this grocery display" is saying how you feel about the situation because it says "I shouldn't." To complete this part you'll need a descriptive claim that will fit. An example of what might work might be,

"I shouldn't shoplift a candy bar from this grocery display because I may be caught and arrested." This second part is a descriptive claim because it is an observation of what may happen. While what may happen involves what is lawful, it is less about a persons thoughts and feelings and more about the action of what will/might happen.

Part B is showing a principal as well. "I should accurately report my income on my federal tax form" is saying how you feel by using "I should" in a similar way to part A. An example of what may work might be,

"I should accurately report my income on my federal tax form because if I am caught then [further explanation]"

Hope this helps!

the correct answer would be "the amiens cathedral"

i think this is true