LSAT-1992-10-II-24

24. Someone's benefiting from having done harm to another person is morally justifiable only if the person who was harmed knew that what was done could cause that harm but consented to its being done anyway

Which of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle above?

(A) Attempting to avoid being kept after school as punishment for breaking a window. Sonia falsely claimed that her brother had broken it; Sonia's action was morally unjustifiable since it resulted in both children being kept after school for something only Sonia had done

(B) Since Ned would not have won the prize for best model airplane if Penny's brother had not inadvertently damaged her entry while playing with it. Ned is morally unjustified in accepting his prize

(C) Wesley, a doctor, persuade Max to take part in a medical experiment in which a new drug was being tested: since Wesley failed to warn Max about the serious side effects of the drug and the drug proved to have no other effects Wesley was morally unjustified in using the results obtained from Max in his report.

(D) Because Roger's mother suffered severe complications as a result of donating a kidney to him for lifesaving kidney transplant, it was morally unjustifiable for Roger to receive the transplant, even though his mother, herself a doctor, had been eager for the transplant to be performed.

(E) For James, who was convicted of having defrauded a large number of people out of their savings and wrote a book about his scheme while in prison, to be denied the profits from his book would be morally unjustifiable since he was already been punished for his crime.

Can anyone help get the right logical chain for this question? It is very confusing. Key is C.