ellebee said:
So he didn't get picked bc he said he couldn't and she didn't bc she said she would. So what's their game?
When an interviewer asks a question and gives you a choice of answers to choose from, WHAT you answer was is never as important as WHY you answered it that way.
I'm paraphrasing, but Nora answered something like this: "Kids die every day, so what's one more? Plus, I get to cure cancer..."
Her nonchalant answer to killing an innocent child shows that she places very little value on the life of that individual. But by saying "
I get to cure cancer" shows that she also places more value on her own actions & legacy than the life of humanity as a whole.
Had she answered either:
A) I save the life of the child because all life is precious and should therefore never be sacrificed...
OR
B) I sacrifice the life of this heroic child in order to save the lives of millions of innocent victims across the world...
it's possible that either justification would have shown a greater respect for humanity at the micro or macro level. But her response showed respect for neither. Perhaps they're looking for someone with a little more concern for life and humanity.