Even though the authors point to a number of situational variables that contributed to the destructive obedience of Stanley Milgram's participants (e. g., normative and informational conformity pressures, conflicting norms), it might still be argued that people have, lurking deep within them, sadistic tendencies that can easily be elicited by situational variables. What experimental findings by Milgram call this "personal attribution" into question?
a. When participants could choose the level of shock, they administered very low levels. b. Violent prisoners administered lower shocks than non-prisoner participants. c. There are cultural differences in the amount of shock participants administer. d. When the learner was introduced as a minister, participants gave lower shocks.

a. When participants could choose the level of shock, they administered very low levels

Explanation:

Migram experiment is known as Milgram shock experiment. And this experiment focused on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.  This means that, it explained how personal conscience use to fight with the obedience to authority.

The experiment was intended to observe how far the participants were willing to obey the experimenter, even though what they were doing was morally wrong.

In a nutshell,  Milgram reached the conclusion that a majority of individuals will continue to obey authority figures even if the individuals believe the acts to be wrong.

the supreme court plays a big role in government. the constitution gives them ability to check the president and the congresses actions and dictate if their actions are allowed by the constitution or not.

hope this .

this question your asking is true hope this and you get a 100 percent : )