Which of these is a descriptive claim?

• The river ought to be fenced off to protect residents
• The river flooded three streets after heavy rain
• The riverside fences are ugly and should be removed

Which of these is a value claim?

• The school has exactly four hundred enrolled pupils
• The hot lunch costs two pounds for each pupil
• Every child should be offered a hot school lunch

Adding more descriptive facts removes the need for a value premise when justifying a moral should in the arguments studied here.

A solar plan would save money compared with the alternative. All other effects are equal. Therefore the town ought to choose the solar plan. Which value premise completes this argument?

• If other effects are equal, councils never need to compare purchase costs
• If other effects are equal, we ought to choose the cheaper option
• If other effects are equal, saving money proves that every policy is fair

A student finds a value premise in an argument and says, 'That proves the conclusion follows.' What check is still needed?

• Check that every premise contains should before accepting any conclusion
• Check only whether the value premise matches what most people already believe
• Check whether the conclusion follows from all the premises together

Assume a poll correctly reports that 70% of residents approve of a proposed road. Taken on its own, what does this support?

• It supports a claim about approval, not a final moral verdict
• It proves the road is morally right, regardless of its other effects
• It proves those opposing the road have made mistakes about the facts

Value: If a wall is the only feasible way to prevent serious flood harm, the town ought to build it. Fact: This wall is the only feasible way to prevent that harm. Which premises support the conclusion that the town ought to build this wall?

• Only the fact: it can justify the moral conclusion without any rule
• Only the value: it establishes that this particular wall will work
• Both: one states the moral rule and one says its condition holds

A critic accepts that a policy cuts costs and waiting times but rejects the premise 'We ought to adopt every policy that cuts both.' What kind of disagreement remains?

• They disagree about the value premise guiding the decision
• They disagree about whether the policy reduces both costs and waits
• They agree on every premise, so there is no disagreement to explain