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?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Irrelevance (the "irrelevance" sin) applies here because the claim is true but provides no useful, distinguishing environmental information.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Greenwashing "sins": common categories include Fibbing (false claims), Hidden Trade-Off (focusing on one attribute while ignoring larger impacts), Lesser of Two Evils (claiming a product is greener within an overall harmful category), Vagueness/No Proof, and Irrelevance (true but meaningless claims).
- Irrelevance specifically refers to truthful statements that are legally required, outdated, or otherwise uninformative for consumer choice.

2. Step-by-step reasoning
- Step 1: Determine factual status of the claim. The product claims "CFC-free." That claim is factually true.
- Step 2: Determine whether that truth conveys useful information. CFCs have been banned by law since 1996, so all compliant products must be CFC-free.
- Step 3: Evaluate whether the claim differentiates the product. Because all legally sold products must be CFC-free, the claim does not distinguish this product from others.
- Step 4: Match the situation to the greenwashing categories. A true but non-distinguishing claim is the hallmark of Irrelevance.

3. Calculations
- None required.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
- The claim is factually accurate but irrelevant to the consumer’s decision because the regulation already guarantees the attribute; therefore the label is a classic example of the Irrelevance sin of greenwashing.

5. Why the other options are incorrect
- a. Lesser of Two Evils: This implies the product is marginally better within a harmful category (e.g., "organic cigarettes"); not applicable here.
- b. Hidden Trade-Off: Would apply if the label highlighted one positive trait while masking a negative impact in another area; the CFC-free claim does not conceal such a trade-off.
- d. Fibbing: Means the claim is false; here the claim is true, so Fibbing is not correct.

6. Conclusion
- The correct classification is c. Irrelevance, which matches the provided answer.

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?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 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?

When evaluating a new project, firms should include in the projected cash flows all of the following EXCEPT:

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