In the following passage, some of the words have been left out. Read the passage carefully and, for the final moral judgment, select the correct answer out of the four alternatives. Morality is identical with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of actions that are right or wrong. Politics is the science of expediency and need not always be right. If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be ______.

Introduction / Context:
This question completes the philosophical passage contrasting morality and politics. The passage explains that morality is concerned with ethical right and wrong, whereas politics is often driven by expediency. The final sentence states that if an action is wrong but convenient, a certain moral conclusion follows. Your task is to select the word that best expresses this conclusion and preserves the logic of the passage.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- Morality is linked with ethics and the doctrine of right and wrong actions. - Politics is described as the science of expediency and may not always be right. - The sentence under focus is: If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be ______. - Options: justifiable, relevant, acquired, immoral. - The blank will contain the final moral verdict on such an action.

Concept / Approach:
The passage contrasts moral standards with political expediency. If morality declares an action wrong, and politics finds it useful or expedient, the writer wants to insist that moral judgment must prevail. Therefore, the word in the blank should explicitly say that such an action cannot be defended or excused. The adjective justifiable does exactly this: it states that no sound justification can be given. The other options either do not express a moral verdict or directly contradict the structure of the sentence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recognise that wrong already states the moral status of the action. Merely expedient says that it is only practically useful. Step 2: The conclusion must therefore say that such an action cannot be defended or excused in moral reasoning. Step 3: Insert justifiable. The sentence then reads If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be justifiable, which clearly fits the moral argument. Step 4: Insert relevant. If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be relevant does not follow. An action can be wrong yet still be relevant to a situation, so this breaks the logic. Step 5: Insert acquired or immoral. Acquired does not convey any moral evaluation, and immoral would create repetition and logical confusion because the sentence would read If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be immoral, which contradicts the earlier word wrong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Read the entire passage with the chosen answer. Morality is identical with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of actions that are right or wrong. Politics is the science of expediency and need not always be right. If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be justifiable. The conclusion follows smoothly from the earlier lines and powerfully states the moral message that usefulness alone never excuses wrong actions. Replacing justifiable with any other option either creates illogical repetition or ruins the clarity of the moral stance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Relevant is wrong because relevance is about connection to a topic or situation, not moral defence. A wrong action can still be relevant. Acquired is wrong because it refers to something gained or obtained and carries no moral judgment in this context. Immoral is wrong because the sentence already states that the action is wrong, and saying it cannot be immoral would amount to a contradiction.

Common Pitfalls:
A common error in such cloze passages is to focus on individual word meanings without checking the internal logic of the sentence. Some test takers choose immoral simply because it is another moral word, without noticing that it clashes with the phrase something is wrong in the same sentence. Others pick relevant because it looks sophisticated. A better strategy is to paraphrase the argument in simple language: if an action is morally wrong, its practical benefits cannot justify it. From this paraphrase, justifiable becomes the only logical and natural choice.

Final Answer:
The passage asserts that moral wrongness cannot be defended by usefulness, so the correct word for the blank is justifiable.