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

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Lesser-of-two-evils greenwashing is when marketers claim a product is “better” or “less harmful” than alternatives even though the entire product category is intrinsically harmful (e.g., cigarettes, large fossil-fuel SUVs).

1) Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Lesser of Two Evils: advertising that emphasizes a minor eco-friendly attribute to suggest a harmful product is acceptable because it’s “less bad.”
- Irrelevance: claims that are true but unimportant (e.g., “CFC-free” on a product that never used CFCs).
- Fibbing: outright false environmental claims.
- Hidden Trade-Off: highlighting one benefit while hiding a worse impact elsewhere (e.g., “made from recycled plastic” while ignoring massive emissions in production).

2) Step-by-step reasoning
- The examples are “organic cigarettes” and “eco-friendly SUVs.” Both belong to product categories that are broadly harmful to health or the environment.
- The marketer is not claiming a totally false fact (not fibbing), nor calling out irrelevant attributes unrelated to environmental impact, nor simply hiding another trade-off within production processes.
- Instead the message implies “this harmful product is acceptable because it’s a bit greener” — that is precisely the lesser-of-two-evils framing.

3) Intermediate logic steps (no numeric calculation)
- Identify the product category: cigarettes/SUVs = harmful overall.
- Identify the claim type: “organic” or “eco-friendly” suggests relative improvement.
- Map to definitions: relative improvement for a harmful category = Lesser of Two Evils.

4) Why the correct answer is correct
- The core of Lesser of Two Evils is presenting a product from an inherently harmful category as comparatively acceptable by emphasizing minor eco-attributes. That matches “organic cigarettes” and “eco-friendly SUVs” exactly.

5) Why the other options are incorrect
- Irrelevance: would be a true but meaningless claim (not the case here).
- Fibbing: would require a false statement (not implied).
- Hidden Trade-Off: would emphasize one lifecycle benefit while hiding another specific harmful side; here the issue is the whole category’s harm rather than a concealed trade-off.

6) Conclusion
The correct choice is d. Lesser of Two Evils, which matches the provided answer.

A company sells "organic cigarettes" or "eco-friendly SUVs" - 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 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?

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?

Which of the following trees corresponds to a potential parse of the ambiguous sentence below, with correct syntactic categories? Some diagnostics are provided.

Which of the following sentences contain two non-finite verbs? Select all that apply.

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