Explain all answer choices please

@Aidyn-Carlson, Happy to help. The lawyer's argument is flawed because he's saying that since one condition that's sufficient for doing something wrong wasn't satisfied, then the necessary condition (being wrong) isn't met. We know this is faulty logic. He's basically saying A - >B not A - >not B As we know, this simply isn't right. (A) says, "confuses a factual claim with a moral judgment." Even though saying that stealing is wrong is a moral judgment, the lawyer does provide support for making this moral judgment, so in doing so, he's not confusing a factual claim with a moral judgment. (A) is descriptively inaccurate, so it's out. (B) says, "takes for granted that Meyers would not have taken the compost if he had good reason to believe that it was someone else's property." The problem with (B) is that the lawyer in the stimulus does not make any assumptions regarding whether or not Meyers would've taken the compost. Rather, the lawyer is discussed what really happened, so (B) is out. (C) says, "takes a condition that by itself is enough to make an action wrong to also be necessary in order for the action to be wrong." (C) is right on the money. The lawyer in the stimulus makes the assumption that in order for Meyers to be wrong, it is essential that he stole. This is precisely what we'd anticipated, so it's the correct answer. (D) says, "fails to consider the possibility that the compost was Meyers' property." Based on the context of the stimulus, it's very evident that Meyers didn't own the compost, so (D) is out. (E) says, "concludes that something is certainly someone else's property when there is merely good, but not conclusive, reason to think that it is someone else's property." The problem with (E) is that the argument does not make a conclusion about whether or not the compost definitively belonged to someone else; rather, the argument discusses whether or not it was wrong for Meyers to take the compost. Thus, we can get rid of (E). Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

The answer choice is the contrapositive of the conclusion...so tricky.

I am confused with the wording of the correct answer. Specifically this part "to also be necessary in order for the action to be wrong." Could someone explain this please?

Hi Alannadels, This is basically a roundabout way of saying that the author mistakes a condition that is sufficient for one that is necessary. The first half of the answer choice tells us that the author takes a sufficient condition, and the part you highlighted "to be also necessary for the action to be wrong" is to say that the author mistakes the condition as necessary.