Lawyer: If you take something that you have good reason to think is someone else' s property, that is stealing, and stealing is wrong. However, Meyers had no good reason to think that the compost in the public garden was anyone else' s property, so it was not wrong for Meyers to take it. The reasoning in the lawyer's argument is flawed in that the argument
A: 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
B: fails to consider the possibility that the compost was Meyers' property
C: 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
D: 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
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
A