Sectiоn 2: Applied Ethics Cаse Anаlysis Chооse Cаse A or Case B. Write in multiple connected paragraphs and aim for 500–700 words. State which case you selected. No formal citations are required. Case A: AI Advising At A Community College A community college is piloting an AI advising system. The system uses grades, attendance, learning-management-system activity, and program history to predict which students may withdraw. Advisors receive a risk score and a recommended action, such as contacting the student, discussing a lighter course load, or exploring a different program. The system cannot change a student's enrollment on its own. Students do not see how the score was produced. Some students receive useful support earlier than they otherwise would. Advisors also report that the score can misread students who work irregular hours, share devices, or complete coursework close to deadlines. College leaders must decide whether to expand the system, revise it, or stop using it. Case B: AI Companions In Assisted Living An assisted-living organization is piloting AI companion tablets. The system can hold conversations, remember residents' preferences, provide reminders, and alert staff when a conversation contains language associated with serious distress. Some residents report feeling less isolated, and staff value the reminders. The system can also encourage emotionally intimate conversation, store sensitive personal information, and give responses that sound caring even though no person is present. Residents were told that conversations would be stored to operate the service, but they were not asked whether de-identified conversations could be reused to improve later versions. The vendor now asks the organization to authorize that additional use. Administrators must decide whether to expand, revise, or stop the program and whether residents must opt in before their conversations are reused. Use An Argument From Principle Use the argument strategies from Testing Moral Arguments. This course normally uses an Argument from Principle for a practical ethical judgment. Include a compact labeled argument inside your response: P1: state the moral standard or principle that supports your judgment. P2: state the case fact or facts that make the standard relevant. P3, when needed: make the bridge visible by explaining why those facts count under the moral standard. C: state the specific action or policy your premises support. The labeled lines map the reasoning. The connected paragraphs develop and defend it by explaining why each premise should be accepted, how the premises support the conclusion, and which facts or interpretations remain uncertain. What Your Response Must Demonstrate Identify the central moral conflict, the relevant decision-maker, and the facts and stakeholders that are most important to your judgment. Apply one foundational framework from the course: Divine Command Theory, natural law, Aristotelian virtue ethics, Kantian deontology, or rule/two-level utilitarianism. Explain its key concepts accurately and show how the framework changes what you notice, value, or recommend in the case. After explaining your argument, present the strongest competing position or objection. Identify whether it challenges a premise, the connection between the premises and conclusion, the scope of the conclusion, or a likely consequence of your recommendation. Give the objection a fair reason. Respond by defending, revising, narrowing, or partially conceding your original argument, then state your final recommendation. Include at least one concrete condition, limit, safeguard, exception, or threshold. Your answer should read as a sustained case analysis. Do not submit disconnected answers to the required moves or merely name philosophical concepts.