Seems to me that the girl gave this rather dubious moral reasoning for not attempting the question to divert from the fact that she probably just didn't know how to solve it! This girl will probably go far!
Anyway ignoring the date-night question for a minute, a far more interesting question IMO is quoted further down the article.
Its the "cruel exam question" set by the University of Maryland.
Select whether you want 2 points or 6 points added onto your final paper grade.
But there’s a small catch: If more than 10% of the class selects 6 points, then no one gets any points. Your responses will be anonymous to the rest of the class, only I will see the responses.
Assuming a reaonsably large number of people taking the exam, and assuming that your primary objective is to try and maximise your own score, I think that from an individidual's point of view, the logical choice is to select 6 additional points. (I'll explain why I think this is true if anyone disagrees).
The paradox is though, that if everyone follows the same rigorous logic to maximise their score, they will all end up with a lower score than if they'd all made the "illogical" choice of an additional 2 points.
Which all makes my brain hurt a bit!
What would other people do if faced with a question like this?