>What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)? Did you read it? It says: "Kim knows they

>What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)? Did you read it? It says: "Kim knows they probably didn't exclude her on purpose" — that is the impetus, and more importantly, it is exactly the kind of thing that should be tested for here. The wrong answer is asking Kim to mistrust her own knowledge; not trusting your own knowledge is obviously a cognitive distortion. The other advantage of expressing it this way is that you evade any situation where the reader gets distracted by overanalyzing the specifics of the justification, which are not the point. So I find the question to be worded reasonably and to accurately check for a cognitive distortion. >Secondly, while intentionality can be important, why is there so much weight seemingly being placed on it these days (or is that just my perception?) There has always been a lot of emphasis placed on intentionality in morality. That's why we have Latin phrases like mens rea. >One could drive drunk without any intention of anything bad happening and still get into an accident. One could fire a gun randomly into the air with no intention of harming anyone and the bullets still come down and hit someone. We have specific laws for these exact situations. You might not have intended to harm anyone, but you must have intended to break the law. This has the advantage of not punishing people for unintentional actions.