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. ███ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ████████ ██ ████████████████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████████ █ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ███ █████ █████ ████████████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ███████
According to the advocate, if you are correct to claim that it’s 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 advocate’s argument.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██████████
An action can ██ █████ ████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ████████████ ████ ███████ ███████
One should purchase █ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ████████
One should purchase █████ ███████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ████████ █████████████
One should not ███████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██████
One should not ████████ ████████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████████ █████ █████████