A company sells "organic cigarettes" or "eco-friendly SUVs". The claim might be true, but the whole product category is harmful. Which sin is this?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Lesser of Two Evils fits this scenario because it highlights a minor green attribute in a product category that is itself environmentally or socially harmful.

1) Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Seven Sins of Greenwashing include distinct tactics firms use to mislead: Fibbing (making false claims), Hidden Trade-Off (focusing on one positive attribute while ignoring other negative impacts), Irrelevance (true-but-meaningless claims), and Lesser of Two Evils (promoting a product’s small green benefit while the overall category is harmful).
- Lesser of Two Evils: advertising a product as comparatively “better” within a product class that is fundamentally harmful (e.g., “organic” tobacco or “eco-friendly” gas-guzzling SUVs).

2) Step-by-step reasoning
- Identify the claim: “organic cigarettes” or “eco-friendly SUVs.” These claims assert a specific positive attribute (organic tobacco; some eco feature on an SUV).
- Evaluate the product category: cigarettes cause serious health and environmental harm; SUVs are a high-emissions vehicle class with large environmental impacts.
- Match to definitions: Because the advertised benefit addresses a narrow attribute while the overall product category remains harmful, the tactic is pointing out a comparatively lesser harm rather than making the product genuinely sustainable.

3) Calculations
- None required for this conceptual classification.

4) Why the correct answer is correct
- The core of the example is comparing an allegedly greener version of an intrinsically harmful product class. That is the textbook description of the Lesser of Two Evils sin: implying consumers can make an environmentally sound choice by picking a marginally better option in a harmful category.

5) Why the other options are incorrect
- a. Fibbing: would be an outright falsehood (a claim known to be false). The example allows the claim might be factually true (e.g., organically grown tobacco), so it’s not necessarily fibbing.
- c. Irrelevance: covers claims that are true but meaningless (e.g., “CFC-free” on a product that never used CFCs). The example is meaningful (a real attribute) but misleading because of the harmful category.
- d. Hidden Trade-Off: involves highlighting one environmental benefit while hiding other related negative impacts of the same product’s lifecycle. Here the emphasis is on the inherent harm of the entire product class rather than a trade-off among lifecycle attributes.

6) Conclusion
Therefore the correct classification is b. Lesser of Two Evils, which matches the provided answer.

A company sells "organic cigarettes" or "eco-friendly SUVs". The claim might be true, but the whole product category is harmful. Which sin is this?单项选择题

类似问题

A product uses terms like "natural," "green," or "eco-friendly" that have NO legal definition. Which sin is this?

A company makes a claim that is PROVEN FALSE - contradicted by their own statements. Which sin is this?

A company sells "organic cigarettes" or "eco-friendly SUVs" - the whole product category is harmful. Which sin is this?

A company makes a claim that is PROVEN FALSE - contradicted by their own statements. Which sin is this?

A product claims "CFC-free!" but CFCs have been banned by law since 1996. The claim is true but completely useless. Which sin is this?

A company sells "organic cigarettes" or "eco-friendly SUVs". The claim might be true, but the whole product category is harmful. Which sin is this?

Name the Supreme Court decision that removed financial constraints on PACs.

Political scientists Joshua Kalla and David Broockman find that senior policy makers made themselves available to _____ between three and four times more often than they did to constituents.

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单