Write a well-developed argumentative essay in which you argue which choice — staying or walking away — represents the more ethically defensible response to systemic injustice. Your essay should:

Avoid summarizing the plot; concentrate on how Le Guin presents the moral dilemma and what your selected interpretation reveals about individual responsibility when faced with collective injustice.

Suggested length: 4–6 paragraphs (approximately 800–1,200 words) Suggested time: 60–75 minutes

• Present a clear, debatable thesis that firmly takes a stance on the moral implications of each choice.
• Analyze specific details from the text (the child's suffering, the narrator's tone, the justifications offered by citizens, the silence of those who walk away) to bolster your argument.
• Address the counterargument: recognize the strongest argument for the opposing choice and clarify why your position is more compelling.
• Link Le Guin's allegory to a broader ethical framework (such as utilitarianism, deontological ethics, or social contract theory) to enrich your analysis.

In your essay, be sure to:

• Analyze how Le Guin portrays Omelas as both appealing and profoundly troubling.
• Examine the symbolic meaning of the child in the basement and what it signifies about systemic injustice.
• Evaluate the moral implications of the three choices citizens confront: acceptance, ignorance, or departure — and what each choice reveals about complicity and conscience.
• Use specific textual evidence to back up your argument.