Advocate: You claim that it is wrong to own gasoline-powered cars because they pollute too much; you have an electric car, which pollutes far less. βββ βββ βββββββ ββββ ββββ ββββ βββ ββββ βββββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββββββββββββ βββββββββ ββ ββββ βββββββββ ββββββββ β ββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββ βββββ βββ βββββββ βββββ ββ βββ βββ βββββ βββββ ββββββββββββββββ βββββ βββ ββββββ βββ ββββ ββββ ββββββββ βββ βββββββ
According to the advocate, if you are correct to claim that itβs wrong to own a gasoline-powered car, then you should not have purchased an electric car made by a company that also makes gas cars. This is because doing so benefits a company that makes products which you object to.
The advocate uses factual premises to show that your car purchase benefits a company which also makes products you object to, but then jumps to the conclusion that you should not have your electric car. The advocate must be assuming a value judgment.
We need to find a rule which matches that assumption, that you should not purchase product from a company that also makes products you object to. That would justify the advocateβs argument.
Analysis by AlexandraNash
Which one of the following βββββββββββ ββ ββββββ βββββ ββββ ββββ ββ βββββββ βββ ββββββββββ ββββββββββ
An action can ββ βββββ ββββ ββ ββ βββ βββββ ββββββββ ββββββββββββ ββββ βββββββ βββββββ
One should purchase β βββββββ ββββ ββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββ βββ βββββββββ ββββββββ
One should purchase βββββ βββββββ βββββ βββ βββ ββ ββββββββ βββββββββββββ
One should not βββββββ ββ ββββββββββββ ββββ ββββ ββββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββ ββ ββββββ
One should not ββββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββββββ ββββ ββββ ββ βββββββββββββββ βββββ βββββββββ