At a particular moment in time, a particular society’s wealth is distributed very unevenly, with some individuals controlling ten times the amount of wealth as the least wealthy individuals. How would Nozick and Rawls assess the society in terms of justice?

Nozick would argue that this is an unfair society, while Rawls would say that in order to assess whether that society is fair or unfair, we would have to know how the least favored members live in it.

Explanation:

As we know, the wealth of a society is divided unevenly in a country, causing great social inequality and extreme income imbalance, where some people are highly favored and others are very disadvantaged and exploited.

Within this context, Nozic and Rawls differed in concluding whether this is a just or unjust society. This is because for Nozic, if society distributes its wealth unevenly, it causes an inequality of opportunity for the citizens who compose it. Thus, this is an unfair society, because the most favored members will have more access to opportunities, while the most disadvantaged members will not have the same access.

For Rawls, however, judging society as fair or unfair does not depend on how its wealth is distributed, but on how the most disadvantaged members manage to live. If they manage to live decently, even with few resources, society is fair, if not, society is unfair.

it should be c, women were allowed to vote in all states because federal law supersedes state law.

"states can make their own laws, as long as they don't contradict what the federal law states. the states do not have the authority to pass a law that negates a federal law." -google

answer; i believe the correct answer is norming;