1) Explain Katz’s reasoning as to why the choice not to do something is different from and less blamable than the choice to perform an action. Put the discussion in the frame of any of the examples Katz uses (e.g. the trolley problem, the transplant surgeon, etc.). What might Katz say about instances in which the law blames failure to act, e.g., ignoring an infant crawling along the side of a busy highway? How about an individual who chooses not to be vaccinated against Covid-19?

2) Shooter A fires 95 shots, B fires 5, out of a total 100 shots, one of which kills someone. Katz says that courts decline to convict based on just statistical probability. Why?
How might this reasoning apply regarding civil rights cases in which discrimination is inferred by disparate impact? [E.g., if no women are hired as firefighters, the legal presumption is that the cause is discrimination against women]. Use examples and reasoning from Katz as the basis of your comments.