I'm having trouble characterizing the flaw/assumption for this argument.
The argument states that it is "almost universally accepted" that you have an obligation to prevent harm to your family members.
From there, it argues:
1) "few" people would deny that it's ok to hide a son/daughter from the police if they're falsely accused (sub-conclusion), and that
2) therefore, it's ok to "sometimes" obstruct the police.
Basically, I thought that the argument gave insufficient evidence for both its conclusions. To be more precise, simply stating that a certain obligation is "almost universally accepted" does not mean 1 or 2 are true.
B) seems to address this by saying that other values could override the obligation to protect family.
Is this correct? Or is there a better way to characterize this problem?