solved task- Set out Crisp’s arguments concerning autonomous desire and rational

task- Set out Crisp’s arguments concerning autonomous desire and rational choice which purport to show that repetitive advertising and puffery* are both kinds of advertising which subvert autonomy. Identify any important differences between the cases and explain how they affect his conclusions.* Don’t get confused: Crisp uses this term in an extremely non-standard way.Explanation- At the beginning of his paper, Crisp says that he will show “all forms of a certain common type of advertising are morally wrong…[because] they override the autonomy of consumers.” He identifies 3 varieties of this type of advertising: subliminal suggestion, puffery, and repetition (end of last full paragraph on p.413). However, that’s the last we hear of repetition in the paper.Sometimes this is fine. Suppose I’m arguing that smurfs are awesome. There are a lot of smurfs. It would be tedious to go through them one-by-one (Handy is awesome because…. Papa Smurf is awesome because….). The better thing to do is to pick a representative smurf, show why that smurf is awesome, and then argue that those reasons generalize to other smurfs.But now the game depends on whether the smurf I’ve chosen is in fact representative. It might be that the reasons Smurfette is awesome (e.g., her impeccable choice in footwear) don’t generalize. Thus the danger of this strategy is that it’s an easy way to mislead your audience (or yourself!). The argument might only work for the one example and not translate to the others.Analogously, Crisp implicitly asserts that the reasons puffery is problematic also apply to repetitive advertising. Thus what I’m asking you to do is figure out whether his arguments about puffery really do apply to repetitive advertising.That means you need to, at the very least, (1) explain why he thinks puffery undermines autonomy; and (2) explore whether the same reasoning shows the same thing about repetitive advertising.You can approach this serially —do (1), then do (2). Or you can approach this in parallel —do (1) and (2) for the argument about autonomy, then do (1) and (2) for the argument about rational choice. Both approaches can be fine. Personally, I prefer the serial approach; the parallel approach makes it easy to get mixed up about what I’m supposed to be discussing. But this is personal preference. Do what works for you.