Even though MacArthur's diet book helped many people lose weight, MacArthur should not have published it. ██ ███████████ ████ █████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████████████
The author concludes that MacArthur should not have published his diet book. Why? It hurt the health of some of its readers, and MacArthur either knew or should have known this would happen.
The argument features a prescriptive claim, but the premises only tell us facts. As such, the author assumes there is some link between the two. We need a conditional statement that bridges the gap between, phrased as “if premises, then conclusion.” This gives us a strong prediction:
If one either knows or should have known that their actions would hurt others, then they should not have done those actions.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██████████
One should not █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███████
One should not ██████ █ ██████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████
One should publish █ ████ ████████████ ███████ ██████████████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ █████ ███████ ████ ███████ █████
One should not ███████ █ ████ ████████████ █ ██████████ █████ ██ █████████ █ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ █████ █████ ████ █████
One should not ███████ █ ████ ████████████ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ████████████