Explain the difference between what kant calls a categorical imperative and a counsel of prudence

It might be stated that Kant's three imperative formulations are the Universal Law, Humanity and Autonomy. The first one might “act in accordance with a maxim if you can at the same time will it as a universal law”, the second might “act so that you can use humanity, rather in yourself or another, as an end (in itself), and never merely as a means”, and the last one might act in accordance with maxims that would be enacted into law be a legislator and member of a realm of ends. On the other hand, he defines Counsel of Prudence as the “hypothetical Imperatives that have happiness as their end; ex: make friends so as to be happy”.

Ithink the answer is d.

Answer/// absolute and unchanging laws;