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 ['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', "fails to consider the possibility that the compost was Meyers' property", "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", "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"]