Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Prompt: While both Tawney and Hayek endorse equal opportunity (for instance, they both reject inherited privileges in job opportunities), they nevertheless advocate two different and competing conceptions of the general ideal of equal opportunity. Clearly define and explain each of their conceptions of equal opportunity by explaining what they agree on and what they disagree on. (It will probably help here to give examples or policies where they agree and disagree). Clearly reconstruct the supporting arguments each gives for his preferred conception of equal opportunity. How would each argue against the other, and how might each reply to the other’s objections? Finally, make sure to critically evaluate the debate: whose conception and supporting reasons are most convincing, and why?

Philosophers: Friedrich Hayek/ Richard H. Tawney

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Is phenomenology able to provide an account of consciousness that can adequately explain how objective knowledge is possible? Or is the analysis of language and meaning able to do this?
• How can we best explain the source of our ethical obligations to others? Is such an explanation possible?
• Is there such a thing as “first philosophy” – that is, the philosophical question or concern that must be addressed before all others can begin? If so, what is it?
• What position does the human subject occupy in the world? In what way(s) am I fundamentally related to other beings, and what conclusions about knowledge or behavior can be drawn from this (if any)?

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Required reading: Textbook, Chapter 2; also (in Additional Material folder): "Facile Assumptions." And: Textbook, Chapter 3; also (in Additional Material folder): "Deduction vs. Induction" and "Hints on Validity." Due Friday, May 13, NOON.

I. For each of the following arguments, provide one basic assumption that is interesting, important, or significant (not "facile"). Type your answer starting at the point of the arrow. Two points each, total 10.

1. In University City, all public acts of excretion are prohibited. Hence, spitting is prohibited, given that spitting is excretion. To be consistent, barfing should be prohibited as well, in University City.
=>

2. The Earth is surely spherical. After all, spheres cast curved shadows. Further, the Earth casts a curved shadow on the moon during an eclipse. 
=>

3. No one who endangers his health is rational. It follows that students who smoke cigarettes are irrational, because cigarettes endanger their health and they darn well know it.
=>

4. The moon influences the water in our bodies by moving it around. Isn't the water in our bodies water that is also on the Earth? And isn't it true that the gravity of the moon influences, by moving it around, all the water on the Earth?
=>

5. Standard aptitude tests are culturally biased. That means that the standard aptitude tests are unconstitutional, since cultural bias is discrimination and discrimination is prohibited by the Constitution.
=>

II. For each argument below, indicate whether it is Deductive (use the abbreviation DED) or Inductive (abbreviation IND). Put your abbreviation at the tip of the arrow. Also indicate the conclusion of the argument, by putting [brackets] around it. Two points each, total 10.

6. The Boss: "John has been absent from work every day this week. The portfolio he was supposed to turn in never arrived, although he did send me by email the Phillies' schedule. Yeah, I guess he's goofing off again."

=>

7. You won't get a solid C in this course. It doesn't matter whether you get an F or a D on the final exam. If you get an F, your final average will be only a D. Or if you get a D, your average at most will be a C-. And I know you won't do any better than that on the final exam. So there.

=>

8. Look through this telescope. The sun is causing the light that passes close to the sun to bend. That's awesome. Would you have supposed that a large round smelly gaseous object could exert gravitational pull on photons?

=>

9. Whenever I come across a turtle walking across a road, I stop my car and wait for it to cross safely. See, I'm a good-natured dude. And if I see a cat caught in a tree by a ferocious dog, I'll get it a Big Whopper so it will leave the poor pussy cat alone. 

=>

10. If Roger is taller than Jose, and Jose is taller than Nusrat, and Nusrat is taller than every ferret, then Roger must be taller than every animal which is shorter than a ferret.

=>

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

1. Accident – This fallacy is committed when a reasoner draws the conclusion that some characteristic or
   property belongs to a member of a collection or group of things, entities or events only because it is
   generally true for that collection or group of things, entities or events. This is the fallacy that happens
   when someone treats a general tendency as if it were a categorical claim or an “iron law” that would be
   true in each specific instance or case, rather than as a claim that is true in some or most cases, but not
   all. In the field of probability there are many logical pitfalls. One is to reason to the probability of
   something being true or happening in the future simply from the statistical generality of its occurrence
   in the past. But, statistics and probabilities (or “odds”) are not the same thing! If one could easily and
   dependably reason to particular conclusions based simply on a general tendency, it would be a lot easier
   to make money betting on things like sports than it is! In fact, the simple tendency of a batter to hit a
   ball or a team to win its games at a particular statistical rate in the past is not enough in itself to support
   specific conclusions about the probability of any particular result in the next at-bat or game. Similarly,
   the bare fact that something is true in general for a group or collection is never enough in itself to
   establish that the same thing will be true for any single member of the group. Here are some simple
   examples of the Accident fallacy:
   Whales are fish, because most sea-going creatures with fins are fish, and whales are
   sea-going creatures with fins.
   55
   She is a Drexel student, and in general, Drexel students are creative, intelligent, and
   energetic. Hence, I expect Anna to be a creative, intelligent, and energetic young woman.
   Most of the animals at the zoo have “Property of the Zoo” stamped on them. Since this
   penguin is from the zoo, it should have “Property of the Zoo” stamped on it as well.
   2. Ad Hominem – This is the common inductive fallacy that occurs when a reasoner offers irrelevant
   negative and usually abusive claims about the proponents or supporters of some position as the only
   evidence against the position. The Ad Hominem fallacy is commonly known as “name-calling,” and in
   politics is a basic ingredient of what has come to be known as “mud-slinging” and “negative” or
   “oppositional” campaigning. The Ad Hominem fallacy amounts to arguing that something is a bad idea
   for the irrelevant reason that it is promoted or held or was originated by persons the arguer dislikes or
   distrusts. The basic mistake of this fallacy is to shift attention away from the real question toward a
   different issue.27 But the characteristic feature that makes an argument Ad Hominem is that it draws
   attention to some deficiencies of the proponents or supporters of a position and away from the position
   itself or its merits. Here are some simple examples of the Ad Hominem fallacy:
   Affirmative action programs are bad policies, since people who support them only do so
   out of political correctness.
   We can confidently dismiss Dr. Inkblot’s position concerning the war seeing as she’s a
   Psychology professor. What does she know about issues of war and peace and
   international diplomacy?
   Nixon’s foreign and domestic policies were certainly wrong-headed and misguided. This
   man was arrogant to the point of being paranoid and psychotic, and he couldn’t even
   manage to run his own life, let alone the business of the nation during a time of war.
   3. Ad Populum – This is the common inductive fallacy committed when someone reasons that
   something is true just because everyone or a large number of people have endorsed it. The fact that
   even 100% of the population might agree with an opinion or practice doesn’t make right. Large numbers
   of people are often wrong, deluded, or ill-informed, the victims of propaganda and misinformation, or
   just conformists. The reason that “everybody says so” is so weak, and depends upon so many other
   assumptions being true, that it is in itself worthless as a reason that should convince us of anything.
   Arguments that are Ad Populum can nevertheless be very persuasive, especially in contexts where it is
   possible to play upon the listeners’ pre-existing fears and peer pressure. An important reason why is
   that this fallacy involves appealing to the listener’s sense of similarity to and connection with others.
   People like to feel that we belong to a larger community in which we are at home. We all tend to feel
   anxious and alienated when it seems like everyone is against us, or our views, or that we have been
   excluded from society. The Ad Populum fallacy plays on our fears of being regarded as different from
   others. The fact that people want to belong and want to be loved by others makes us all susceptible to
   the claim that we will be admired if only we buy whatever product the speaker is selling, or adopt the
   political perspective they wish us to adopt. Here are some simple examples of the Ad Populum fallacy:
   I think you should study Business in college. Everyone knows a degree in Business is
   better than one in the Humanities or Liberal Arts. Just ask anybody!
   This President has the worst approval poll numbers in history. So, clearly his
   performance as President is unacceptable and inadequate.
   56
   There is something wrong about parents adopting children who are ethnically and racially
   different from themselves, seeing as everyone I have talked to about this issue and all my
   friends say that this is wrong.
   4. Appeal to Ignorance – This common inductive fallacy occurs when someone claims that an idea or
   belief is true or false just because there is no clear evidence or good reason to believe otherwise. This
   kind of reasoning argues that we should accept that something is the case if it has not been ruled out,
   and that we should deny that something is the case if it has not been proven. While it is good advice not
   to accept something as true until there is good evidence for it, it is another thing entirely to conclude
   that some specific claim or belief is false because there is no evidence that proves it true. Similarly,
   although it is good advice not to rule something out as long as there is a possibility that it is true, it is
   another thing entirely to conclude that it is true because we haven’t proven it to be false. In either of
   these cases the reasonable thing is to withhold judgment and continue to seek more conclusive
   evidence in either direction. Here are some simple examples of the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy:
   I believe that UFO’s must have visited the earth at some time in history, seeing as no one
   has yet been able to prove that they haven’t.
   The regime of Saddam Hussein probably had weapons of mass destruction at the time
   the US invaded Iraq, seeing as it hasn’t been completely established that it did not have
   them.
   No one has yet shown conclusively that garlic does not cure cold and flu symptoms,
   therefore, I say it does.
   5. Appeal to Tradition – This is the fallacy committed when someone argues that because something
   has been thought to be true or practiced over a long time, it is for that reason right to think it or do it
   now. There are many things that are valuable about traditional beliefs and practices, but to value them
   for the simple reason that they are traditional may conceal and protect beliefs and practices that would
   not stand up to critical scrutiny. We can easily think of instances in which long-held ideas or practices
   turned out to be wrong, or were simply rejected after being accepted for a long time. The Appeal to
   Tradition is also problematic because traditional beliefs and practices differ substantially among persons
   and groups. So, to argue that someone outside our group’s traditions should adopt a belief or practice
   because our group has always done so would be tendentious. Here are some simple examples of the
   Appeal to Tradition fallacy:
   In our society women have held jobs that have less prestige than men and they have
   been paid less for comparable work for as long as anyone can remember. Hence, there
   is no good reason why these practices should be seen as wrong or unfair.
   I am against the proposal for Wattsamatta U. to develop a football program. Ever since
   the school was founded in 1891, our school community has never felt the need to devote
   its energy and financial resources to fielding a football team.
   There is simply no good reason to consider having an environmentally sustainable and
   healthy Thanksgiving celebration this year. Thanksgiving has always been a festival of
   over-consumption and a tribute to gluttony and waste at our house and across America.
   6. Apples and Oranges Fallacy – A common fallacy directly associated with analogical reasoning is
   known as Apples and Oranges. This is the fallacy committed when an argument is based on an analogy
   that is weak or irrelevant to the issue the argument is supposed to address. Although two things 
   57
   compared in an analogy might really be similar in a few ways, the ways may not matter depending on
   what the issue is. And the two things compared may at the same time be quite different in other ways.
   For an Analogical Argument to be strong, the two things compared in the analogy must be alike
   enough to give strength to the expectation that what has been true in the one case will be true in the
   other. The more similar two things are, the stronger the analogy and, in general, the stronger the
   argument based on their sameness. But no matter how strong a similarity there is between two things, if
   the similarity is beside the point of the question we are trying to answer, any argument based on it is still
   going to be weak. So, the premise that asserts the analogy also has to be relevant to the issue the
   argument is designed to address. It is reasonable to assume that what has been true in the past will tend
   to be a good guide to future expectations about similar things. But the complexity of most “things” we
   might want to make arguments about recommends that great care be exercised whenever it is claimed
   that two things really are “similar.” It is very easy, especially when we are inclined to trust a speaker or
   to accept his or her conclusions anyway, to accept isolated and irrelevant similarities as if they were
   relevant and strong. Here are some simple examples of the Apples & Oranges fallacy:
   You will have a lot of fun playing badminton with us in Clark Park, since you enjoy playing
   volleyball, and volleyball is just like badminton.
   Anyone who has operated a lemonade stand understands that the market determines
   winners and losers based on the ability to efficiently produce goods inexpensively and
   sell them at a profit. Thus, it is obvious what we need to do to fix our broken national
   system of health care.
   I should be allowed to text, tweet, play video games or do anything else I want while in
   class. Being in class is just like being on a bus or a train or in a movie theatre—you pay
   for your seat, and you are at liberty to do as you like.
   7. Begging the Question – An argument commits the inductive fallacy known as Begging the Question
   whenever its premises simply re-state or assume the truth of its conclusion. Such an argument isn’t
   really an argument, since it is just re-asserting the conclusion in the premises as if it were self-evident or
   supported itself. Arguments that beg the question come in a wide variety of forms. What they share is
   the characteristic of reasoning in a circle—instead of advancing reasons for a position, the position is
   merely asserted again and again, often using slightly different words, but logically returning to square
   one. Thus, Begging the Question is often referred to as “circular reasoning.” Here are some simple
   examples of the Begging the Question fallacy:
   Non-quantitative methods of study are worthless, because they don’t involve any
   measurements using numbers.
   Wattsamatta University cannot afford to undertake the registration changes requested by
   the Student Council at this time, since doing so would be expensive and inconsistent with
   current policies and procedures.
   It's very clear that the time has come to recognize that the only thing to do in Elbonia right
   now is to leave right away, and stop all this talk about small, incremental troop
   movements, seeing as we now have no choice but to leave immediately and
   unconditionally.
   8. Composition – This is the common inductive fallacy committed when someone reasons that just
   because a property characterizes some or all of the parts or components of an entity or system, the
   same property characterizes the system or entity as a whole. It is easy to think of examples of things 
   58
   whose properties are not simply reducible to the properties of their parts. The parts or components of
   things often mix and blend to create new and different properties than they individually had before they
   became integrated. There is nothing mysterious about this when you think about how a recipe creates a
   taste that isn’t simply the tastes of all the ingredients added together. A sports team, a complex living
   organism, and a musical ensemble share this feature of being characterized by properties that cannot be
   understood as the simple aggregate result of combining the qualities of their parts. This is why it is
   sometimes said of an entity that, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” This well-known
   expression captures the idea that something more and different arises when the parts come together
   and function as an entity or organism. Here are some simple examples of the Composition fallacy:
   Each of its members is a fair and wise person, thus the Academic Honesty Committee
   will reach fair and wise decisions.
   Mary Anne likes the color orange, so I think Mary Anne will like that painting because the
   painting has some orange in it.
   The new amphitheater is constructed out of lightweight steel beams. The building is
   therefore very light.
   9. Division – This fallacy is committed when someone reasons that just because some property
   characterizes an entity or system as a whole, the same property characterizes some or all of the parts or
   components of that entity or system. The fallacy of Division starts with the whole and draws a
   conclusion about all or some of its parts. Division is thus the direct opposite of Composition: while the
   Composition fallacy moves from the properties of parts to the whole, Division “divides” the whole,
   reasoning from properties of the whole to a part or parts. Division is also closely related to the fallacy of
   Accident. The difference between them is just that Division starts with a unified whole or organism and
   concludes to some claim about a part. By contrast, the fallacy of Accident starts with a collection of
   things or a group of individuals about which we have made a generalization, and concludes to some
   claim about a member or instance. Here are some simple examples of the Division fallacy:
   Of course Carolyn enjoyed her freshman year at the University. She has always said she
   is very glad she graduated from the University and enjoyed being a student there.
   Moby Dick is one of the greatest novels ever written, thus, Chapter 42, “The Whiteness of
   The Whale,” must be one of the greatest chapters ever written.
   Spending more and saving less would be good for our troubled economy right now.
   Therefore, at this time, more spending and less savings will be good for each individual
   household in our economy.
   10. Genetic Fallacy – This is the common inductive fallacy committed when someone argues that
   something is true about a thing or an idea, practice, or policy just because it was true of its origins or
   causes, or at its beginning or its source. The Genetic Fallacy happens because knowing about the origins
   and sources of things is often a good starting point for research. But research has to tell us whether or
   not there is a strong continuity between the source or origin of something and its present state or
   condition, which after all could be entirely different. This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of
   Appeal to Tradition, since both make the mistake of seeing a basis for justifying present practices or
   beliefs in the assertion that the practice or belief was supported at some time past. The difference is
   that Genetic Fallacy sees the origin or source of a thing as privileged in determining its present
   characteristics while the Appeal to Tradition argues from the maintenance of a belief or set of practices
   over time. Genetic Fallacy can also look a lot like Division under certain circumstances where what it
   59
   means to ‘come from’ something else is unclear (as in the first example below). Here are some examples
   of the Genetic Fallacy:
   This perfume has got to be poisonous, so you should stop using it. Here’s why—in my
   botany class we examined the plant that the extract used in the perfume comes from, and
   that plant is a poisonous plant.
   The first governments were associations among humans who were willing to use violence
   to defend their power and maintain order. Hence, governments today are just
   organizations devoted to the use of violence to maintain order and defend their power
   and privilege.
   The liberal arts curriculum is a support for elitism and exclusion. It originated in the idea
   that people who were not slaves or servants could pursue a wide range of intellectual and
   artistic endeavors.
   11. Hasty Generalization – A common fallacy associated with statistical reasoning is called Hasty
   Generalization. This is the common inductive fallacy committed when a reasoner argues to a conclusion
   about a collection or group of things based on a sample that is unrepresentative of the target the arguer
   is trying to generalize about. As we saw above, a sample of observations or instances that can
   legitimately “speak for” the larger group or target that one is trying to generalize about should be large
   and randomly-selected. If not, the result is likely to be a “sweeping generalization,” which can be
   especially dangerous precisely because it may really reflect a small sample that one happens to be
   working with, but doesn’t represent the group or class one is supposed to be reasoning about, (the
   target). A good deal of the thinking that results in ethnic, gender, and racial stereotyping, for example,
   reflects this kind of logical mistake. This fallacy is often also called the fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence.
   Here are some simple examples of the Hasty Generalization fallacy:
   You won’t have a good time if you take the family to the Adventure Aquarium this
   summer. I visited there last summer and the ferry ride was choppy and the aquarium was
   crowded.
   The new migraine drug we have developed will be effective in the general population.
   The proof is that a clinical trial that studied twelve Sicilian nuns dramatically diminished
   their symptoms in a study that lasted several weeks.
   College students today are definitely more concerned with their own financial matters
   than world affairs. I know this because in a recent survey of business majors, 75% said
   they were more concerned about paying their credit card bills than the state of the world
   and the actions of their government.
   12. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc – A common fallacy directly associated with causal reasoning is known as
   Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. This is the common fallacy committed when an arguer asserts a causal
   relationship between two events just because the one preceded the other. Although a cause must
   precede its effect, this does not mean that the observation of precedence, even if made repeatedly, is
   enough to allow us to conclude that a causal connection exists. As noted above, more is needed to
   establish the likelihood of a causal relationship than mere precedence. The most obvious cases of the
   Post Hoc fallacy are standard superstitious reactions and the faulty inferences people can make when
   they regard as causally connected two events or circumstances which later appear to be “merely a
   coincidence.” Here are some simple examples of the Post Hoc fallacy:
   60
   Literacy rates have steadily declined since the advent of television. Clearly television
   viewing impedes learning.
   He started using drugs just about the time he started seeing that girl. I knew she was a
   bad influence.
   Since the beginning of commercial nuclear power production in the 1950’s, the rate at
   which breast cancers have been diagnosed has steadily increased. Hence the increase
   in the incidence of breast cancer must have been caused by nuclear power production.
   13. Red Herring – This inductive fallacy consists of providing premises that lead away from the issue or
   question at hand by changing the subject or diverting the listener’s attention. This happens whenever
   the premises are addressing a question other than the one that appears to have been intended. Here is
   an example:
   The United States government is a very complex bureaucratic and organizational
   structure, and it would be foolish to take everything our leaders tell us at face value.
   Consequently, the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives detonated as
   part of a U.S. government conspiracy.
   As noted above, Ad Hominem reasoning constitutes an evasion or distraction from the issue an
   argument is supposed to be about. This makes it a special case of Red Herring. In the following example,
   the arguer answers a question about Ecuador policy with an attack on the press whose effect is to
   change the subject:
   There are many reasons for breaking diplomatic relations with Ecuador at this time. If the
   members of the liberal media would stop badgering the President about it and cease their
   unpatriotic and unfounded attacks on him, he would be better able to do the American
   people’s business, and protect U.S. interests around the world.
   Another common and effective tool for diverting attention is the use of so-called “glittering
   generalities” as Red Herrings. These are pleasant-sounding words and phrases like “progress,”
   “enterprise,” and “the American Dream,” which have strong positive emotional resonance, but which
   are frequently used in a vague way so that it is unclear exactly what they refer to. Invoking these kinds
   of words and phrases in this manner tends to draw attention away from the question at hand, and
   associates the speaker’s position with good feelings and images. Glittering generalities create a vague
   good feeling and promise very little. Here is an example of the use of glittering generalities to create a
   Red Herring:
   In my view, the government acted appropriately and effectively in response to Super
   Storm Sandy. Here’s why—at this time the patriotic thing to do is to focus on rebuilding
   and healing, not nasty, partisan sniping. That’s the American Way!
   14. Slippery Slope – This is the common inductive fallacy committed when an arguer invokes the domino
   effect as a kind of scare tactic predicting that calamitous consequences are inevitably going to follow
   from an action or choice, which are exaggerated and unsubstantiated by evidence. The “domino effect”
   is the notion that a relatively small and seemingly inconsequential event in one place will set in motion a
   sequence of causes and effects that eventually will lead to disaster. The Slippery Slope fallacy happens
   when there aren’t any good reasons to expect that the predicted calamitous consequences will actually
   follow from the small initial step. Here are some simple examples of the Slippery Slope fallacy:
   61
   You had better stay home and study Friday night. If you don’t, then you won’t get an A on
   Monday’s exam. If that happens, your grades won’t be good enough to get into the
   medical school you want, and then your whole life is likely to be ruined!
   If you take too many Philosophy classes, you’ll discover all kinds of interesting things you
   won’t get paid for thinking about. That will make it harder for you to preoccupy yourself
   with the petty distractions and delusions people need to focus on to stay employed and
   make money in our society, leaving you disillusioned, and unemployable. So, don’t take
   too many Philosophy classes.
   There are good reasons why the University has to raise tuition another 47% this year. If
   we don’t have this increase in revenue, we won’t be able to make the payments on the
   loans we took out to finance our various building projects. If that happens, we will have
   no choice but to default on our loans, sending the University into a desperate financial
   tailspin from which it might never recover. Nobody wants that!
   15. Straw Man – An argument commits this inductive fallacy when it oversimplifies, exaggerates, or
   distorts an opposing or alternative position and argues against the distorted version, rather than against
   the real position. It involves presenting the other side of a debate in its weakest and worst possible light
   instead of arguing against its strongest version. The Straw Man fallacy thus typically occurs in the
   context of disputation and controversy, and amounts to setting up a flimsy version of one’s opposition
   so that one can make a show of how easily it is knocked down. The arguer who contends with a Straw
   Man instead of his or her real opponent is actually sidestepping the real contest. Anytime you hear
   someone characterize a view to which you know the speaker stands opposed, listen carefully for signs
   that he or she is presenting something other than that position, especially if it ends up sounding
   ridiculous and unappealing. Here are some simple examples of the Straw Man fallacy:
   Those who do not support increasing troop levels and the intensity of our struggle with
   insurgents in Iraq would be happy if Osama bin-Laden rode into Baghdad as a
   conquering hero. Therefore there is no good rationale for considering the withdrawal of
   U.S. troops from Iraq.
   Majoring in Classical Studies would be a real waste of time, since it revolves entirely
   around reading dusty old books written by dead White men on arcane subjects that have
   very little relevance to contemporary issues and real-world problems.
   It would be a waste of time for us to discuss building a pedestrian bridge over Chestnut
   Street to enhance student safety coming and going from the Hans. The Board of
   Trustees cannot just snap its fingers and take on a massive design and construction
   project between now and the beginning of classes.
   16. Unqualified Expert – This is the common inductive fallacy that happens when evidence is provided
   by a person or institution invoked as authoritative whose expertise is either not credible or not
   independent. As noted above, credible, independent expert testimony adds strength to conclusions, but
   the lack of such testimony in itself isn’t a logical reason to deny or reject a claim. Vested interests and
   conflicts of interest are potential not automatic sources of bias in argument. Such ties are likely to have
   some effect on what people notice and how it is interpreted. But conflicts of interest and vested
   interests do not necessarily mean someone or some organization is biased. Remember, being biased
   does not mean simply having an opinion or a perspective, it means holding it without regard to what the
   evidence seems to show, and perhaps despite reasonable evidence to the contrary. Arguments that
   involve rejecting a claim just because it is offered by someone who is not an expert commit the Ad
   Hominem fallacy, (described below). Here are some simple examples of the Unqualified Expert fallacy:
   62
   Restrictions on smoking in restaurants are not necessary to protect public health. My
   brother is a pharmacist and he says they will make no difference to public health
   whatsoever.
   I think the proposal to donate Clark Park to the Nature Conservancy should be rejected
   because my friends who spend a lot of time playing Frisbee in the Park think it’s a very
   bad idea.
   You shouldn’t use cell-phones or let your family use them. My friend at the gym who is a
   History professor told me they give off a form of radiation that is as yet poorly understood
   which can make a person’s vision and hearing deteriorate and can cause brain tumors.◊

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Identify the most prominent fallacy 
1.    My chance of being born on December 25 was the same as yours.  So, the chances we were both born on December 25 have to be twice as great.

2.    “Aw c’mon Jake, let’s go hang out at Dave’s.  Don’t worry about your parents; they’ll get over it.  You know the one thing I really like about you is that you don’t let your parents tell you what to do.”

3.    The paint store is the best place to work on your diet.  After all, you can get thinner there.

4.    All the members of this club have strong views, and all the men in this community have strong views.  So all the men in this community are members of this club.

5.    I believe that Tim is telling the truth about his brother because he just would not lie about such a thing.


Supply a claim to turn the following into valid arguments 
1.    Jesse Ventura, the former Governor of Minnesota, was a professional wrestler.  He couldn’t have been a very effective governor.

2.    Half the people in the front row believe in God.  Therefore, half the class believes in God.


Put into standard form.

1.    Plato was a philosopher.


Standard Form 
    1. Assuming "All woodpeckers sing really well," is false, put this claim into         standard write the corresponding AEIO claims (whatever this isn't), and where     possible determine the truth values of these claims.

    2.  Do the same for "No Norwegians are Slavs" (assume true).

Use venn diagrams to determine whether this is valid.  Please show your work. 

2.  Only systems with removable disks can give you unlimited storage capacity of a practical sort.  Standard hard drives never have removable disks, so they can’t give you practical, unlimited storage capacity.

Construct Truth Tables (short or long) to determine which of the following are valid 

1. Pv(Q->R)        2. Lv~J
Q&~R                R->J
---                ----
~P                L->~R

Derive one of the following (5 pts).  Extra Credit, derive both 

Q->L        (P&S)v(T->R)
P->M        ~(S&P)
RvP            -----
R->(Q&S)        T->R
-----
~M->L

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

What does Emmanuel Kant mean by public and private use of our reason? How is his distinction different from the way we use the terms "private" and "public" today?

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Question: Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal
Provide an example of a research question related to your course project topic that would better be examined using longitudinal rather than cross-sectional data. Explain and justify your example.

My course project topic: (I attached a copy of my course project project) 
Topic: My research topic is: “A study of the Relationship between Adolescent Criminal Behavior and selected background variables committed by males in the 15 through 17 age range in the wake county juvenile detention center”
( you would need to create a research question related to my course project topic that would better be examined using longitudinal rather than cross-sectional data. Explain and justify your example.) 


This article uses Cross-Sectional: 
(I attached a copy of the article)
****Article 1: Delinquency Among African American Youth : Parental Attachment, Socioeconomic Status, and Peer Relationships by: Steven B. Carswell
(APA) Carswell, S. B. (2007). Delinquency among African American youth: parental attachment, socioeconomic status, and peer relationships. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Example: (Cross-Sectional meaning:  using both male and female subjects,, or using demarcate and republican subjects)

Let me know if you need any additional information for this assignment 

unit reading:Descriptive and Correlational Studies
INTRODUCTION
Unit 2 focused on the importance of operationally defining the variables using valid and reliable instruments. Once the researcher selects the instruments, a research design is chosen—the blueprint or strategy for data collection. The first research design we discuss is the non-experimental design: descriptive studies.
Descriptive studies include correlational, cross-sectional, and longitudinal designs. In non-experimental studies, the researchers do not give treatments. Rather, they observe behaviors, interactions, situations, events, attitudes, and beliefs. The U.S. census and the Gallup Poll surveys are examples of descriptive studies. The goal of the U.S. census is to describe the characteristics of the U.S. population and the populations of states and counties. Gallup Polls frequently ask questions about the attitudes of individuals on certain topics.
Another type of descriptive study is the correlational study. Correlational studies describe the relationship between two variables. The researcher collects data for both variables, correlates the pairs of scores, and yields a correlation coefficient. There are negative, positive, and no correlations. For example, researchers might take data from the U.S. census and examine the relationship between age and income.

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:
Practicing With Research Questions, Constructs, and Variables

Preparation

During this quarter, the literature review article, "How Was Your Day, Darling?" by Steiner and Krings (2016) will serve as the literature review model. Discussions in this course practice application of skills. The research design and analysis to answer two of the questions from the sample article will be demonstrated throughout the discussions, including consideration of the theories and model presented in the paper.

Terminology You Need to Know for Discussions

Below are examples of each type of research question.
o    Descriptive Question: What are the levels of negative work-to-family crossover and significant-other support among direct-care staff in outpatient mental health programs?
o    Associational: Is there an association among significant-other support of work and perceived feelings of work energy for direct-care staff working in outpatient mental health programs?
o    Associational (Prediction): Is employment tenure, significant-other support, and gender predictive of negative work-to-family crossover among direct-service staff in outpatient mental health programs?
o    Difference: Does staff with supervision responsibility have higher levels of negative work to family crossover than direct-care staff in outpatient mental health programs? Does planned carpooling reduce negative work-to-family crossover among direct-service staff working in an outpatient mental health program?


Questions: Instructions

Select one of the literature reviews that are provided, formulate a question that will be answered by a cross-sectional design and one to be answered by an experimental design. You will use these questions as the basis for many of the remaining discussion questions related to measurement and design.  For each question list the hypothesis that will be tested by your data collection effort.


Choose one of the following literature reviews to use throughout course activities:

1.    Degnan, A., Seymour-Hyde, A., Harris, A., & Berry, K. (2016). The role of therapist attachment in alliance and outcome: A systematic literature review.  Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 23(1), 47–65.
2.    Esmaeilzadeh, P., & Sambasivan, M. (2017). Patients support for health information exchange: A literature review and classification of key factors. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 17(33), 1–22.
3.    Willis, K., Lewis, S., Ng, F., & Wilson, L. (2015). The experience of living with metastatic breast cancer—A review of the literature. Health Care for Women International, 36(5), 514–542. 
4.    Reed, K. P., Cooper, R. L., Nugent, W. R., & Russell, K. (2016). Cyberbullying: A literature review of its relationship to adolescent depression and current intervention strategies. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 26(1), 37–45. 



unit reading: •    Developing the Research Question 
Introduction
The research question is the foundation of the entire research process. It links the research problem to the process of conducting the research. It provides the framework for the research design and identifies the specific concepts under study. This latter characteristic is extremely relevant to quantitative research.
Jackson (2009) categorizes quantitative research questions into three fundamental types:

1.    Difference: Where the intent is to demonstrate differences in the level or scores in a dependent variable for different groups identified by an independent variable or variables. These questions require a hypothesis and are answered with the use of inferential statistics. Questions of differences may be answered by cross-sectional or longitudinal designs. If the research is looking at differences over time or between data points (such as pre- to post-test) this would be a longitudinal, quasi-experimental, or experimental design.
2.    Associational: Where the intent is to see if one or more variables co-vary; or if one or several variables may predict changes in a dependent variable. These questions also require a hypothesis and are answered with the use of inferential statistics. However, associational questions are usually answered by cross-sectional designs.
3.    Descriptive: Where the intent is to provide a summary of characteristics of a group. Inferential statistics are not used to answer these questions.
A “researchable question” is one that is empirical.  This means that it is answered with observations made under defined conditions (data collection procedures).  These observations must be able to be replicated and that others can replicate these procedures and yield similar results. 
The research question in quantitative research contains discernible constructs that can be operationally defined.

Bordens and Abbott (2008) provide these guidelines for a good quantitative research question:
o    It will clarify relationships among variables known to affect the behavior under study.
o    It is probably important if the answer can support only one of several competing models or theoretical views.
o    A question is probably important if its answer leads to obvious practical applications.
It should be noted that an important research question is one for which the answer is already known, either through a review of the literature or common sense.

References
Bordens, K., & Abbott, B. B. (2008). Research designs & methods: A process approach (8th ed.). McGraw Hill: New York, NY.
Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2009). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis (2nd ed.). Routledge: New York, NY.

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:
1. According to Tolstoy, why does life seem to be meaningless, and for most of the story, what does he think is the best response to life’s meaninglessness?
2. Explain the “Eastern fable” as it relates to the previous question. Make sure to include what the parts of the fable symbolize.
3. How does Tolstoy find faith? Explain in a paragraph, since there are a few steps he takes.

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:
Description    
PHI2600 – Ethics - Mid-Term Examination
Write an essay in response to the following scenario and set of questions. I would estimate that you will need about 3-4 pages. Be as concise yet complete as you can be. Don’t fill up space with meaningless words. Organize your writing so that it makes clear sense. Make sure that you are able to refer to your knowledge of the ethical theories that we have studied and how they relate to the issue described and to the questions I have provided.

Write it in a Word doc and then copy and paste the text into the Blackboard Test site.  Make sure you save your document in case something goes wrong.
Instructions    
The big “shake” has finally happened! California has been devastated by a massive earthquake measuring 9.3 on the Richter Scale. Large sections of the state including San Francisco and surroundings have been destroyed. In the city, most of the buildings have been destroyed or damaged. There have been over 100,000 deaths and four times that are injured seriously. Most of the population of the city is now displaced.
In this exam, you will be asked to take the role of several leading individuals. You will write what immediate plans they will make to respond to this disaster from the various positions and points of view. In each case you must express a thorough knowledge of the ethical system(s) each leader will use to make his/her decisions and apply those ethical theory/theories either individually or in combination effectively to assist with the disaster. Be creative in your writing but be sure that you express a thorough knowledge of the chapters in the textbook.
Here is a list of the ethical theories to be used (or rejected with reasons if you choose):
1. Ethical Relativism (which may or may not actually be an ethical theory).
2. Egoism
3. Utilitarianism
4. Kant Moral Theory
5. Contractarianism
6. Natural Law
7. Virtue Ethics
8. Ethics of Care

Here are the leaders. You will take the role of EACH ONE using ALL of them and respond to the disaster in an ethically appropriate way. It will be up to you to imagine the situations to which they will be responding beyond my description.

A. The Director of FEMA Federal Emergency response is in charge of all Federal responses including temporary housing, emergency removal of dead and injured people, removal of the rubble, and rebuilding of the city.
B. The Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church of San Francisco is in charge of humane disposal of bodies, funeral services and pastoral care for the injured, the bereaved and families of injured and displaced persons.
C. The Mayor of San Francisco is responsible for marshalling the relief agencies of the city and for speaking to the population words of encouragement.
D. The Director of the San Francisco Joint Hospital Response Team is responsible for direct action in the devastated areas, decisions about who to care for and how to care for them through hospitals, clinics, and mobile medical facilities.

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

"What Is Really Real?":

In at least 350 words, please explain the answer given to this question by one of Laozi, Plato or Shankara.  Now provide your own well-reasoned answer, including a discussion of at least one similarity or dissimilarity your view has to the view of the philosopher you have chosen to write about

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Question:
Should businesses be required to go beyond the law and act ethically even if it involves loss of profits?
In order to answer the question be sure to DO ALL of the following:
1)Pick a case, from a reputable news source, in which a business is faced with the option of doing something morally good that is not legally required
2)Explain what the business actually did
3)Assess the morality of the business' actions using one of the theories discussed in class (Kant, Mill, Hursthouse, Nozick, Locke, Rawls, Smith, Marx, any others)
4) Consider and defend your view against criticisms using two other views (also discussed in class)