pretty much i wouldn't save any of them, they're all bad people, but some are less at fault than others.
so first is sally. so all in all she's got good enough grades to get to uni but not making use of it. she's been influenced by her partner so bad choice of partner then and things are going only downhill from there from increasingly worse drugs and she might fail her course.
next is sukhdev. so business man and has badly behaved children, successful company but fraudulent so bc of the fruad and children his wife has mental disorders. he's had an affair and left her for dead basically and is also considering divorce after being unfaithful
last is john. he's basically a criminal and he's trying to get some work but his personality won't allow for that. However this has all happened because of his upbringing. due to upbringing being a huge factor of learning how to interact and live you life later on when you get older.
in conclusion the person i'd save is john because all the other have had free choice to do what they want, they even had an advantage over john in life, they WERE previously successful but degraded and chose to live a life which is full of lies and deciet. john however it's less in his hands because it's not really his fault he commits crimes, yes he is held responsible but less at fault than the other because f his horrendous upbringing. on the surface he's bad but you have to look deeper for the true meaning of why these things are happening
basically this is the question of who's less wrong?
anyone who disagrees with me can fite me and i'll argue my case