Thanks for the question! So we’re asked to find what would contribute most to Shanna’s defense of her position against Jorge. So let’s take a look at what each of them are saying. Shanna is saying that if you own art, you get to destroy it if you find it aesthetically or morally distasteful, or if it’s inconvenient to keep caring for it. And this is just because you own it.
Jorge says that this isn’t true; owning unique artworks is different, since you have a moral right to possess but not to destroy. Unique works of art belong to posterity and so must be preserved, regardless of what the legal owner thinks.
Now let’s take a look at (D), which tells us that there are certain entities over which no one would be ethically justified in claiming absolute rights to ownership. Well, let’s say that this is true. Does it help Shanna defend her position against Jorge? No, not really. In fact, it arguably helps Jorge. If some entities exist which you couldn’t claim absolute rights to ownership too, and those were works of art, then you might not be able to destroy them just because you own them. And Jorge is saying that even if you own something, in some cases, you can’t do whatever you want to it. So this would seem to support Jorge’s argument more than Shanna’s, and at best it’s neutral. So (D) can’t be the answer choice here.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
