Logic: American Association of State Colleges and Universities and Subsequent Rights Restrictions

Sequenced. Precise. Elegant. Clear. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th Edition How to Make an Origami Crane Make your own origami crane using these instructions and the perforated sheet of paper included in your book. 1. Start with a square piece of paper, colored side up. Fold in half and open. Then fold in half the other way. 2. Turn the paper over to the white side. Fold the paper in half, crease well and open, and then fold again in the other direction. 3. Using the creases you have made, bring the top 3 corners of the model down to the bottom corner.Flatten model. The iconic red crane on the cover of this new edition of Hurley’s, A Concise Introduction to Logic symbolizes the qualities that make it the most successful logic text on the market. We have chosen origami to symbolize this text’s careful sequencing, precision, elegance, and clarity. About the Cover 4. Fold top triangular flaps into the center and unfold. 5. Fold top of model downwards, crease well and unfold. 6. Open the uppermost flap of the model, bringing it upwards and pressing the sides of the model inwards at the same time. Flatten down, creasing well.Couple an icon steeped in tradition with a clean, modern design, and you will quickly get a sense of the qualities that make this new edition of Hurley the best yet. Along with instructions, each new text includes a sheet of red paper so that you can bring the cover to life. This exercise serves as a metaphor for the process of learning logic. It is challenging, requires practice, but can be fun. Ideas for other ways to create your own origami can be found at www. origami-resource-center. com. 7. Turn model over and repeat Steps 4-6 on the other side. . Fold top flaps into the center. 9. Repeat on other side. 10. Fold both ‘legs’ of 11. Inside Reverse Fold the â€Å"legs† model up, crease along the creases very well, then you just made. unfold. Finished Crane. 12. Inside Reverse Fold one si de to make a head, then fold down the wings. Source: www. origami-fun. com Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. A C O N C I S E I N T R O D U C T I O N TO Logic Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience.Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. A C O N C I S E I N T R O D U C T I O N TO Logic ELEVENTH EDITION PATRICK J. HURLEY University of San Diego Australia †¢ Brazil †¢ Japan †¢ Korea †¢ Mexico †¢ Singapore †¢ Spain †¢ United Kingdom †¢ United States Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience.The publisher reserves the right to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www. cengage. com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest. Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party co ntent may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. A Concise Introduction to Logic, Eleventh Edition Patrick J. Hurley Publisher: Clark Baxter Senior Sponsoring Editor: Joann Kozyrev Development Editor: Florence Kilgo Assistant Editor: Nathan Gamache Editorial Assistant: Michaela Henry Media Editor: Diane Akerman Marketing Manager: Mark T.Haynes Marketing Coordinator: Josh Hendrick Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio Content Project Manager: Alison Eigel Zade Senior Art Director: Jennifer Wahi Print Buyer: Paula Vang Production Service: Elm Street Publishing Services Internal designer: Yvo Riezebos Cover designer: Jeff Bane of CMB Design Partners Cover image: Courtesy of Getty Images: Red origami crane on white table (image numbe r 85592979) Compositor: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.  © 2012, 2008, 2006 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706 For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www. cengage. com/permissions. Further permissions questions can be emailed to [email  protected] com. Library of Congress Control Number: 2010924757 Student Edition: ISBN-13: 978 -0-8400-3417-5 ISBN-10: 0-8400-3417-2 Wadsworth 20 Channel Center Street Boston, MA 02210 USA Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with o? e locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local o? ce at: international. cengage. com/region Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd. For your course and learning solutions, visit www. cengage. com. Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www. cengagebrain. com. Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. To: All of the instructors, past and present, who have taught logic from this book. It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. –W. K. Clifford Nothing can be more important than the art of formal reasoning according to true logic. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Brief Contents Preface xiii PART I  Ã‚  INFORMAL LOGIC 1 2 3 Basic Concepts 1 Lang uage: Meaning and De? ition 78 Informal Fallacies 119 PART II  Ã‚  FORMAL LOGIC 4 5 6 7 8 Categorical Propositions 197 Categorical Syllogisms 259 Propositional Logic 310 Natural Deduction in Propositional Logic 380 Predicate Logic 442 PART III  Ã‚  INDUCTIVE LOGIC 9 10 11 12 13 14 Analogy and Legal and Moral Reasoning 509 Causality and Mill’s Methods 529 Probability 554 Statistical Reasoning 571 Hypothetical/Scienti? c Reasoning 593 Science and Superstition 615 Appendix: Logic and Graduate-Level Admissions Tests 644 Answers to Selected Exercises 655 Glossary/Index 697 vi Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Contents Preface xiii PART I? INFORMAL LOGIC 1 Basic Concepts EXERCISE 1. 1 7 1 1 14 33 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 1. 2 Recognizing Arguments EXERCISE 1. 2 25 1. 3 Deduction and Induction EXERCISE 1. 40 1. 4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency 44 EXERCISE 1. 4 53 1. 5 Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity EXERCISE 1. 5 63 57 1. 6 Extended Arguments EXERCISE 1. 6 70 64 2 Language: Meaning and De? nition 2. 1 Varieties of Meaning EXERCISE 2. 1 83 78 78 88 2. 2 The Intension and Extension of Terms EXERCISE 2. 2 92 2. 3 De? nitions and Their Purposes EXERCISE 2. 3 99 93 2. 4 De? nitional Techniques EXERCISE 2. 4 108 102 111 2. 5 Criteria for Lexical De? nitions EXERCISE 2. 5 115 vii Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial revi ew has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 3 Informal Fallacies 3. 1 Fallacies in General EXERCISE 3. 1 121 119 122 138 119 3. 2 Fallacies of Relevance EXERCISE 3. 2 133 3. 3 Fallacies of Weak Induction EXERCISE 3. 3 149 3. 4 Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy 156 EXERCISE 3. 4 170 . 5 Fallacies in Ordinary Language EXERCISE 3. 5 185 178 PART II? FORMAL LOGIC 4 Categorical Propositions 197 4. 1 The Components of Categorical Propositions 197 EXERCISE 4. 1 200 4. 2 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution EXERCISE 4. 2 204 200 4. 3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square of Opposition 205 EXERCISE 4. 3 216 4. 4 Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition EXERCISE 4. 4 225 217 4. 5 The Traditional Square of Opposition EXERCISE 4. 5 234 227 4. 6 Venn Diagrams and the Traditional Standpoint 239 EXERCISE 4. 6 245 4. 7 Translating Ordinary Language Statements into Categorical Form 246 EXERCISE 4. 254 viii Contents Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 5 Categorical Syllogisms 259 5. 1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure 259 EXERCISE 5. 1 264 5. 2 Venn Diagrams EXERCISE 5. 277 266 280 288 292 5. 3 Rules and Fallacies EXERCISE 5. 3 286 5. 4 Reducing the Number of Terms EXERCISE 5. 4 291 5. 5 Ordinary Language Arguments EXERCISE 5. 5 294 5. 6 Enthymemes 295 EXERCISE 5. 6 297 5. 7 Sorites 301 EXERCISE 5. 7 304 6 Propositional Logic EXERCISE 6. 1 319 310 6. 1 Symbols and Translation 310 6. 2 Truth Functions EXERCISE 6. 2 332 323 6. 3 Truth Tables for Propositions 335 EXERCISE 6. 3 341 6. 4 Truth Tables for Arguments EXERCISE 6. 4 347 344 6. 5 Indirect Truth Tables 350 EXERCISE 6. 5 358 6. 6 Argument Forms and Fallacies EXERCISE 6. 6 371 360 Contents ixCopyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 7 Natural Deduction in Propositional Logic 380 7. 1 Rules of Implication I 380 EXERCISE 7. 1 386 7. 2 Rules of Implication II 391 EXERCISE 7. 396 7. 3 Rules of Replacement I 401 EXERCISE 7. 3 407 7. 4 Rules of Replacement II EXERCISE 7. 4 419 414 7. 5 Conditional Proof EXERCISE 7. 5 430 427 7. 6 Indirect Proof EXERCISE 7. 6 436 432 438 7. 7 Proving Logical Truths EXERCISE 7. 7 440 8 Predicate Logic 442 8. 1 Symbols and Translation 442 EXERCISE 8. 1 449 8. 2 Using the Rules of Inference EXERCISE 8. 2 460 451 8. 3 Change of Quanti? er Rule EXERCISE 8. 3 467 464 468 8. 4 Conditional and Indirect Proof EXERCISE 8. 4 472 8. 5 Proving Invalidity EXERCISE 8. 5 479 474 481 8. 6 Relational Predicates and Overlapping Quanti? ers EXERCISE 8. 6 489 . 7 Identity 492 EXERCISE 8. 7 501 x Contents Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions r equire it. Part III INDUCTIVE LOGIC 9 Analogy and Legal and Moral Reasoning 509 9. 1 Analogical Reasoning 9. Legal Reasoning 9. 3 Moral Reasoning EXERCISE 9 520 509 512 516 10 Causality and Mill’s Methods 10. 2 Mill’s Five Methods 531 10. 3 Mill’s Methods and Science EXERCISE 10 546 529 529 10. 1 â€Å"Cause† and Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 540 11 Probability 554 11. 1 Theories of Probability 11. 2 The Probability Calculus EXERCISE 11 567 554 557 12 Statistical Reasoning 571 12. 1 Evaluating Statistics 571 12. 2 Samples 572 576 12. 3 The Meaning of â€Å"Average† 12. 4 Dispersion 578 12. 5 Graphs and Pictograms 12. 6 Percentages 586 EXERCISE 12 588 583 13 Hypothetical/Scienti? c Reasoning 593 13. The Hypothetical Method 593 13. 2 Hypothetical Reasoning: Four Examples from Science 596 Contents xi Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, som e third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 13. 3 The Proof of Hypotheses EXERCISE 13 607 02 13. 4 The Tentative Acceptance of Hypotheses 604 14 Science and Superstition 14. 2 Evidentiary Support 14. 3 Objectivity 14. 4 Integrity EXERCISE 14 615 615 14. 1 Distinguishing Between Science and Superstition 616 621 625 630 631 14. 5 Concluding Remarks Appendix: Logic and Graduate-Level Admissions Tests 644 Answers to Selected Exercises Glossary/Index 697 655 xii Contents Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that an y suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Preface The most immediate benefit derived from the study of logic is the skill needed to construct sound arguments of one’s own and to evaluate the arguments of others. In accomplishing this goal, logic instills a sensitivity for the formal component in language, a thorough command of which is indispensable to clear, e? ective, and meaningful communication.On a broader scale, by focusing attention on the requirement for reasons or evidence to support our views, logic provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that threaten the foundations of our democratic society. Finally, through its attention to inconsistency as a fatal ? aw in any theory or point of view, logic proves a useful device in disclosing ill-conceived policies in the politic al sphere and, ultimately, in distinguishing the rational from the irrational, the sane from the insane. This book is written with the aim of securing these bene? s. Every Book Has a Story When I ? rst began teaching introductory logic many years ago, I selected a textbook that was widely used and highly regarded. Yet, my students often had a hard time understanding it. The book tended to be overly wordy and the main points were often lost amid a welter of detail. Also, I found that much of the book’s content was only peripherally related to the central concepts of logic. Using this book provided the happy and unanticipated result that my students always came to class so they could hear me explain the textbook.But after I tired of doing this, I decided to write a textbook of my own that would address the de? ciencies of the one I had been using. Speci? cally, my goal was to write a book in which the main points were always presented up front so students could not possibly mis s them, the prose was clear and uncomplicated, and excess verbiage and peripheral subject matter was avoided. To accomplish these and other related goals, I incorporated the following pedagogical devices: †¢ Relevant and up-to-date examples were used extensively throughout the book. †¢ Key terms were introduced in bold face type and de? ed in the glossary/index. †¢ Central concepts were illustrated in graphic boxes. †¢ Numerous exercises—today there are over 2,600—were included to perfect student skills. †¢ Many exercises were drawn from real-life sources such as textbooks, newspapers, and magazines. †¢ Typically every third exercise was answered in the back of the book so students could check their work. xiii Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial re view has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. †¢ Chapters were organized so that earlier sections provided the foundation for later ones. Later sections could be skipped by instructors opting to do so. †¢ Important rules and tables were printed on the inside covers for ready access. In its ? rst edition, the book was so well received that plans were quickly begun for a second edition.With the completion of that and later editions, the book grew to incorporate many new features: †¢ Venn diagrams for syllogisms were presented in a novel and more e? ective way using color to identify the relevant areas. †¢ Dialogue exercises were included to depict the commission of fallacies in real life. †¢ Predicate logic was extended to include relational predicates and identity. †¢ The Emin ent Logicians feature was introduced to enhance the human element: it presented the lives of historically prominent logicians. †¢ â€Å"Truth Trees† and â€Å"Critical Thinking and Writing† were written as supplements. Learning Logic, a multimedia program that includes an additional 2,000 exercises and that practically teaches the course by itself, was included in the package. †¢ A series of videos dealing with topics that students ? nd di? cult, including the concept of validity, indirect truth tables, and natural deduction, were o? ered with the last edition. I am convinced that with each successive edition the book has become a more e? ective teaching tool. I am also convinced that the current, eleventh edition, is the best and most accurate one to date. New To This Edition †¢ Five new biographical vignettes of prominent logicians are introduced.The new logicians include Ruth Barcan Marcus, Alice Ambrose, Ada Byron (Countess of Lovelace), Willard Van Orman Quine, and Saul Kripke. †¢ Six new dialogue exercises are introduced to help a? rm the relevance of formal logic to real-life. They can be found in Sections 5. 6, 6. 4, 6. 6, 7. 3, 7. 4, and 8. 2. †¢ The end-of-chapter summaries now appear in bullet format to make them more useful for student review. †¢ Many new and improved exercises and examples appear throughout the book. †¢ In Section 1. 4, the link between inductive reasoning and the principle of the uniformity of nature is explained.Cogent inductive arguments are those that accord with this principle, while weak ones violate it. Such violations are always accompanied by an element of surprise. xiv Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially aff ect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. The connection between the Boolean Standpoint and the Aristotelian standpoint is explained more completely. †¢ The existential fallacy as it occurs in immediate inferences is explained in greater detail. All inferences that commit this fallacy have a universal premise and a particular conclusion. The meaning of â€Å"universal† and â€Å"particular† are extended to cover statements that are given as false. †¢ A new exercise set is introduced in Section 4. 5 that involves testing immediate inferences for soundness. †¢ An improved de? nition of the â€Å"main operator† of a compound statement is given. A new subsection is introduced in Section 6. 5 giving preliminary instruction on how to work backward from the truth values of the simple propositions to the truth values of the operators. A ne w exercise set provides practice with this technique. †¢ Section 7. 1 has been rewritten, emphasizing the strategy of trying to â€Å"? nd† the conclusion in the premises. †¢ Margin of error in Chapter 12 is now explained in terms of level of expectation. A more informative table illustrates this change. A complete list of all improvements is given at the beginning of the Instructor’s Manual.Note to the Student Imagine that you are interviewing for a job. The person across the desk asks about your strengths, and you reply that you are energetic, enthusiastic, and willing to work long hours. Also, you are creative and innovative, and you have good leadership skills. Then the interviewer asks about your weaknesses. You hadn’t anticipated this question, but after a moment’s thought you reply that your reasoning skills have never been very good. The interviewer quickly responds that this weakness could create big problems. â€Å"Why is that? † you ask. Because reasoning skills are essential to good judgment. And without good judgment your creativity will lead to projects that make no sense. Your leadership skills will direct our other employees in circles. Your enthusiasm will undermine everything we have accomplished up until now. And your working long hours will make things even worse. † â€Å"But don’t you think there is some position in your company that is right for me? † you ask. The interviewer thinks for a moment and then replies, â€Å"We have a competitor on the other side of town. I hear they are hiring right now. Why don’t you apply with them? †The point of this little dialogue is that good reasoning skills are essential to doing anything right. The business person uses reasoning skills in writing a report or preparing a presentation; the scientist uses them in designing an experiment or clinical trial, the department manager uses them in maximizing worker e? ciency, the law yer uses them in composing an argument to a judge or jury. And that’s where logic comes in. The chief purpose of logic is to develop good reasoning skills. In fact, logic is so important that when the liberal arts program of studies was formulated ? fteen hundred years Preface v Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. ago, logic was selected as one of the original seven liberal arts. Logic remains to this day a central component of a college or university education.From a more pragmatic angle, logic is important to earning a good score on any of the several tests required for admission to graduate professional schools—the LSAT, GMAT, MCAT, and so on. Obviously, the designers of these tests recognize that the ability to reason logically is a prerequisite to success in these ? elds. The appendix in the back of the book contains sample questions and cues on answering them. Also, logic is a useful tool in relieving what has come to be called math anxiety. For whatever reason, countless students today are terri? ed of any form of reasoning that involves abstract symbols.If you happen to be one of these students, you should ? nd it relatively easy to master the use of logical symbols, and your newly found comfort with these symbols will carry over into the other, more di? cult ? elds. To improve your performance in logic, I strongly urge you to take full advantage of a multimedia program called Learning Logic. This is an interactive tutorial that teaches the essentials of this textbook in a very user-friendly way. However, your computer mu st be equipped with loudspeakers or headphones, because the audio component is essential.Learning Logic is available both on CD and online at the Logic CourseMate site. If the CD version or a passcode for the website did not come with your textbook, it can be purchased separately through your campus bookstore if your instructor has ordered it. You can also order it directly at www. cengagebrain. com. In addition to Learning Logic, an eBook and other quizzes and self-study material are available on the Logic CourseMate site. Also available online through the Logic CourseMate site are brief video lectures on key topics. The videos include pointers on how to work the pertinent exercises in the textbook.They cover topics such as the concept of validity, conversion, obversion, and contraposition, indirect truth tables, and natural deduction. If, as you work through the content of this book, you encounter a subject that you have trouble understanding, one of these videos may solve the pro blem. Additionally, a set of audio summaries for each chapter in the book is available. These are designed so that you can download them onto your iPod, mp3 player, or computer and listen to them before taking a test. Because pro? ciency in logic involves developing a kill, it helps to work through the practice problems in Learning Logic and the exercises in the textbook more than once. This will help you see that good reasoning (and bad reasoning, too) follows certain patterns whose identi? cation is crucial to success in logic. As you progress, I think you will ? nd that learning logic can be lots of fun, and working with the online resources should enhance your overall learning experience. Note to the Instructor With this eleventh edition, Learning Logic is available both on CD and online. The CD comes free if  ordered with a new book, or it can be ordered separately at www. engagebrain. com. Online, Learning Logic it is available through the Logic CourseMate site, a password p rotected website (www. cengage. com/sso). This website o? ers the bene? t of being able to check a student’s â€Å"time on task,† that is, how much time the student has spent using a particular supplement. â€Å"Critical Thinking and Writing† and â€Å"Truthtrees† are available free on the website, and they can also be selected as modules in a custom version of the textbook. The videos, which cover topics students often have trouble with, are also available on Logic CourseMate.This edition also features Aplia, one of the Cengage Learning CourseMaster digital solutions. Aplia established a name for itself in the ? eld of economics, where it o? ers interactive online homework xvi Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed cont ent does not materially affect the overall learning experience.Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. assignments with continuous feedback to students. Providing automatic grading, Aplia increases student effort and keeps students accountable for course material while adding no additional paperwork to the instructor’s workload, leaving instructors with more time to prepare lectures and work with students. As Aplia expands its o? erings to include additional subjects, it has won widespread acclaim from thousands of instructors across numerous disciplines. Now, Aplia o? ers its signature bene? s to logic students and instructors with a program speci? cally designed to enhance student engagement. The Aplia assignments build on the exercises in this textbook, and they conform to the language, style, and structure of the book. Let me now turn to alternate ways of approaching the textbook. In genera l, the material in each chapter is arranged so that certain later sections can be skipped without a? ecting subsequent chapters. For example, those wishing a brief treatment of natural deduction in both propositional and predicate logic may want to skip the last three sections of Chapter 7 and the last four (or even ? e) sections of Chapter 8. Chapter 2 can be skipped altogether, although some may want to cover the ? rst section of that chapter as an introduction to Chapter 3. Finally, Chapters 9 through 14 depend only slightly on earlier chapters, so these can be treated in any order one chooses. However, Chapter 14 does depend in part on Chapter 13. Type of Course Traditional logic course Recommended material Chapter 1 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Sections 7. 1–7. 4 Informal logic course, critical reasoning course Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Sections 5. 1–5. Sections 5. 5–5. 6 Sections 6. 1–6. 4 Section 6. 6 Chapter 9 Chapter 12 C hapter 13 Chapter 14 Writing Supplement Section 5. 4 Section 5. 7 Section 6. 5 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Course emphasizing modern formal logic Chapter 1 Sections 4. 1–4. 3 Section 4. 7 Sections 6. 1–6. 5 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Truth Tree Supplement Optional material Chapter 2 Sections 7. 5–7. 7 Chapters 9–14 Chapter 3 Sections 4. 4–4. 6 Sections 5. 1–5. 2 Section 5. 7 Section 6. 6 Preface xvii Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Acknowledgements For their reviews and suggestions leading to this eleventh edition I want to thank the following: Kevin Berry Scott Calef Gabriel Camacho Loren Cannon Victor Cosculluela Thompson Faller Thomas J.Frost Paul Gass Alexander Hall Courtney Hammond Merle Harton Anthony Hanson Ron Jackson William Jamison Sandra Johanson Richard Jones Russel Jones William Lawhead Stephen Leach Keane Lundt Erik Meade Ian MacKinnon Allyson Mount Seyed Mousavian Madeline Muntersbjorn Herminia Reyes Frank Ryan Eric Saidel Stephanie Semler Janet Simpson Aeon Skoble Joshua Smith Paula Smithka Krys Sulewski Brian Tapia William Vanderburgh Mark Vopat David Weise Shannon Grace Werre Katherine D.Witzig Stephen Wykstra Ohio University Ohio Wesleyan University El Paso Community College Humboldt State University Polk State College University of Portland Biola University/Long Beach City College Coppin State University Clayton State University Cuyamaca College Edward Waters College West Valley College Clayton State University University of Alaska Anchorage Green River Community College Howard University Uni versity of Oklahoma University of Mississippi UTPA Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Southern Illinois University–Edwardsville The University of Akron Keene State College University of Alberta University of Toledo San Diego State University Kent State University George Washington University Radford University Su? olk County Community College Bridgewater State College Central Michigan University University of Southern Mississippi Edmonds Community College Foothill College Wichita State University Youngstown State University Gonzaga University Edmonds Community College Southwestern Illinois College Calvin College Of course any errors or omissions that may remain are the result of my own oversight. xviii Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppresse d content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Those who have contributed reviews and suggestions leading to the ten previous editions, and to whom I express my continued thanks, are the following: James T. Anderson, University of San Diego; Carol Anthony, Villanova University; Joseph Asike, Howard University; Harriet E.Baber, University of San Diego; Kent Baldner, Western Michigan University; James Baley, Mary Washington College; Jerome Balmuth, Colgate University; Victor Balowitz, State University of New York, College at Buffalo; Ida Baltikauskas, Century College; Gary Baran, Los Angeles City College; Robert Barnard, University of Mississippi; Gregory Bassham, Kings College; Thora Bayer, Xavier University of Louisiana; David Behan, Agnes Scott College; John Bender, Ohio University, Athens; James O. Bennett, University of Tennessee, Knoxv ille; Victoria Berdon, IUPU Columbus; Robert Berman, Xavier University of Louisana; Joseph Bessie, Normandale Community College; John R. Bosworth, Oklahoma State University; Andrew Botterell, University of Toronto; Tom Browder, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Kevin Browne, Indiana University Southeast; Harold Brown, Northern Illinois University; KenBuckman, University of Texas, Pan American; Robert Burch, Texas A&M University; Keith Burgess-Jackson, University of Texas, Arlington; Michael Byron, Kent State University; James Campbell, University of Toledo; Joseph Keim Campbell, Washington State University; Charles Carr, Arkansas State University; William Carroll, Coppin State University; Jennifer Caseldine-Bracht, IUPU Fort Wayne; John Casey, Northern Illinois University; Greg Cavin, Cypress College; Robert Greg Cavin, Cypress College; Ping-Tung Chang, University of Alaska; Prakash Chenjeri, Southern Oregon University; Drew Christie, University of New Hampshire; Timothy Christion, U niversity of North Texas; Ralph W. Clarke, West Virginia University; David Clowney, Rowan University; Michael Cole, College of William and Mary; Michael J. Colson, Merced College; William F. Cooper, Baylor University; William Cornwell, Salem State College; Victor Cosculluela, Polk Community College; Mike Coste, Front Range Community College; Ronald R. Cox, San Antonio College; Houston A. Craighead, Winthrop University; Donald Cress, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb; Jack Crumley, University of San Diego; Linda Damico, Kennesaw State University; William J.DeAngelis, Northeastern University; Joseph DeMarco, Cleveland State University; Paul DeVries, Wheaton College; Jill Dieterle, Eastern Michigan University; Mary Domski, University of New Mexico; Beverly R. Doss and Richard W. Doss, Orange Coast College; Paul Draper, Purdue University; William A. Drumin, King’s College, Pennsylvania; Clinton Dunagan, Saint Philips College; Paul Eckstein, Bergen Community College; Anne M. Ed wards, Austin Peay State University; Lenore Erickson, Cuesta College; Michael Epperson, California State University, Sacramento; Cassandra Evans, San Diego City College; Evan Fales, University of Iowa; Lewis S. Ford, Old Dominion University; Gary Foulk, Indiana State University, Terre Haute; LeAnn Fowler, Slippery Rock University; Thomas H. Franks, Eastern Michigan University; Bernard D.Freydberg, Slippery Rock University; Frank Fair, Sam Houston State University; Timothy C. Fout, University of Louisville; Craig Fox, California University of Pennsylvania; Dick Gaffney, Siena College; George Gale, University of Missouri, Kansas City; Pieranna Garavaso, University of Minnesota at Morris; Joseph Georges, El Camino College; Kevin Gibson, University of Colorado; Victor Grassian, Los Angeles Harbor College; J. Randall Groves, Ferris State University; Shannon Grace, Edmunds Community College; James Granitto, Santiago Canyon College; Catherine Green, Rockhurst University; James Greene, Nort hern Michigan University; Harold Greenstein, SUNY Brockport; Shahrokh Haghighi, California State University; Alexander W.Hall, Clayton State University; Dean Hamden, Montclair State University; Ken Hanly, Brandon University; Larry Hauser, Alma College; Deborah Heikes, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Ronald Hill, University of San Diego; Lawrence Hinman, University of San Diego; Preface xix Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Dale Lynn Holt, Mississippi State University; John B.Howell, III, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; R. I. G. Hughes, University o f South Carolina, Columbia; Lynn Holt, Mississippi State University; Peter Hutcheson, Texas State University; Debby D. Hutchins, Boston College; William H. Hyde, Golden West College; Sandra Johanson, Green River Community College; Gary Jones, University of San Diego; Glenn C. Joy, Texas State University, San Marcos; Olin Joynton, North Harris County College; Grant Julin, St. Francis University; Glen Kessler, University of Virginia; Charles F. Kielkopf, Ohio State University; Moya Kinchla, Bakersfield College; Bernard W. Kobes, Arizona State University; Keith W.Krasemann, College of DuPage; Richard La Croix, State University College at Buffalo; Sandra LaFave, West Valley College, Saratoga, California; Richard Lee, University of Arkansas; Lory Lemke, University of Minnesota, Morris; Robert Levis, Pasadena City College; Chenyang Li, Monmouth College, Monmouth, Illinois; Ardon Lyon, City University of London; Scott MacDonald, University of Iowa; Krishna Mallick, Salem State College; Tho mas Manig, University of Missouri, Columbia; James Manns, University of Kentucky; Dalman Mayer, Bellevue Community College; Larry D. Mayhew, Western Kentucky University; Leemon McHenry, California State University, Northridge; Robert McKay, Norwich University; Rick McKita, Colorado State University; Phillip McReynolds, Pennsylvania State University; Noel Merino, Humboldt State University; Kenneth R.Merrill, University of Oklahoma; Thomas Michaud, Wheeling Jesuit College; Dolores Miller, University of Missouri, Kansas City; George D. Miller, DePaul University; Richard Miller, East Carolina University; Frederick Mills, Bowie State University; Jeff Mitchell, Arkansas Tech University; John Mize, Long Beach City College; Dwayne Mulder, California State University, Fresno; John D. Mullen, Dowling College; Henry Nardone, Kings College; Theresa Norman, South Texas Community College; David O’Connor, Seton Hall University; Len Olsen, Georgia Southern University; Elane O’Rourke, Moorpark College; Brendan O’Sullivan, Rhodes College; Linda Peterson, University of San Diego; Rodney Peffer, University of San Diego; Robert G.Pielke, El Camino College; Cassandra Pinnick, Western Kentucky University; Nelson Pole, Cleveland State University; Norman Prigge, Bakersfield State University; Gray Prince, West Los Angeles College; R. Puligandla, University of Toledo; T. R. Quigley, Oakland University; Nani Rankin, Indiana University at Kokomo; Robert Redmon, Virginia Commonwealth University; Bruce Reichenbach, Augsburg College; David Ring, Southern Methodist University; Tony Roark, Boise State University; Michael Rooney, Pasadena City College; Phyllis Rooney, Oakland University; Beth Rosdatter, University of Kentucky; Michelle M. Rotert, Rock Valley College; Paul A. Roth, University of Missouri, Saint Louis; Daniel Rothbart, George Mason University; Robert Rupert, University of Colorado, Boulder; Sam Russo, El Camino College; Kelly Salsbery, Stephen F.Austin State University; Eric Saidel, George Washington University; Paul Santelli, Siena College; Stephen Satris, Clemson University; Phil Schneider, Coastal Carolina University; Philip Schneider, George Mason University; James D. Schumaker, University of North Carolina at Charlotte; Stephanie Semler, Radford University; Pat Sewell, University of North Texas; Elizabeth Shadish, El Camino College; Joseph G. Shay, Boston College; Dennis L. Slivinski, California State University, Channel Islands; Arnold Smith, Youngstown State University; JohnChristian Smith, Youngstown State University; Paula Smithka, University of Southern Mississippi; Eric W.Snider, University of Toledo; Bob Snyder, Humboldt University; Joseph Snyder, Anne Arundel Community College; Lynne Spellman, University of Arkansas; David Stern, University of Iowa; James Stuart, Bowling Green State University; John Sullins, Sonoma State University; John Sweigart, James Madison University; Clarendon Swift, Moorpark College; Wayne Swindall, California Baptist College; Bangs Tapscott, University of Utah; Ramon Tello, Shasta College; Jan Thomas, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Phil Thompson, Eastern Illinois University; Richard Tieszen, San Jose State University; Larry Udell, West Chester University; Ted Ulrich, Purdue xx Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. University; Robert Urekew, University of Louisville; William Uzgalis, Oregon State University; Thomas H. Warren, Solano Colleg; Andrew J.Waskey, Dalton State University; Roy Weatherford, University of South Florida; Chris Weigand, Our L ady of the Lake University; David Weinburger, Stockton State College; Paul Weirich, University of Missouri, Columbia; Robert Wengert, University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign; Gerald Joseph Williams, Seton Hall University; Frank Wilson, Bucknell University; W. Kent Wilson, University of Illinois, Chicago; Stephen Wykstra, Calvin College; Marie Zaccaria, Georgia Perimeter College; Jeffrey Zents, University of Texas; Finally, it has been a pleasure working with philosophy editor Joann Kozyrev, development editor Florence Kilgo, project manager Alison Eigel Zade, project editors Emily Winders and Amanda Hellenthal, and editorial assistant Michaela Henry. Preface xxi Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 Basic Concepts 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4 1. 5 1. Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions Recognizing Arguments Deduction and Induction Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity Extended Arguments 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions Logic may be de? ned as the organized body of knowledge, or science, that evaluates arguments. All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We read them in books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them when communicating with friends and associates. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own.Among the bene? ts to be expected from the study of logic is an increase in con? dence that we are making sense when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own. An argument, in its most basic form, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good arguments (at least to that extent), the latter bad argu ments.The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad. As is apparent from the given definition, the term argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal ? ght, as one might  have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features of this de? nition in Additional resources are available on the Logic CourseMate website. 1 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 greater detail. First of all, an a rgument is a group of statements. A statement is a sentence that is either true or false—in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence. The following sentences are statements: Chocolate truffles are loaded with calories. Melatonin helps relieve jet lag. Political candidates always tell the complete truth.No wives ever cheat on their husbands. Tiger Woods plays golf and Maria Sharapova plays tennis. The first two statements are true, the second two false. The last one expresses two statements, both of which are true. Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values of a statement. Thus, the truth value of the ? rst two statements is true, the truth value of the second two is false, and the truth value of the last statement, as well as that of its components, is true. Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or false. Questions, proposals, suggestions, commands, and exclama tions usually cannot, and so are not usually classi? ed as statements.The following sentences are not statements: Where is Khartoum? Let’s go to a movie tonight. I suggest you get contact lenses. Turn off the TV right now. Fantastic! (question) (proposal) (suggestion) (command) (exclamation) The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons or evidence, and the conclusion is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words, the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. Here is an example of an argument: All film stars are celebrities. Halle Berry is a film star.Therefore, Halle Berry is a celebrity. The ? rst two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion. (The claim that the premises support or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word â€Å"therefore. †) In this argument the premises really do support the conclusion, and so the argument is a good one. But consider this argument: Some film stars are men. Cameron Diaz is a film star. Therefore, Cameron Diaz is a man. In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to, and so the argument is not a good one. One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to distinguish premises from conclusions.If what is thought to be a conclusion is really a premise, and vice versa, the subsequent analysis cannot possibly be correct. Many  arguments 2 Chapter 1 Basic Concepts Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to r emove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. contain indicator words that provide clues in identifying premises and conclusion.Some typical conclusion indicators are therefore wherefore thus consequently we may infer accordingly we may conclude it must be that for this reason so entails that hence it follows that implies that as a result 1 Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identi? ed as the conclusion. By process of elimination the other statements in the argument are the premises. Example: Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain. Consequently, torture is not a reliable method of interrogation. The conclusion of this argument is â€Å"Torture is not a reliable method of interrogation,† and the premise is â€Å"Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain. † Premises Claimed evidence Conclusion What is claimed to follow from the evidenceIf an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator. Some typical premise indicators are since as indicated by because for in that may be inferred from as given that seeing that for the reason that in as much as owing to Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identi? ed as a premise. Example: Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus. The premise of this argument is â€Å"The use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus,† and the conclusion is â€Å"Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs. In reviewing the list of indicators, note that â€Å"for this reason† is a conclusion indicator, whereas â€Å"for the reason that† is a premise indicator. â€Å"For this reason† (except Section 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 3 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 hen followed by a colon) means for the reason (premise) that was just given, so what follows is the conclusion. On the other hand, â€Å"for the reason that† announces that a premise is about to be stated. Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise. Consider the following argument: It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved, for wilderness provides essential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species, and it is a natural retreat from the stress of daily life. The premise indicator â€Å"for† goes with both â€Å"Wilderness provide s essential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species,† and â€Å"It is a natural retreat from the stress of daily life. These are the premises. By method of elimination, â€Å"It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved† is the conclusion. Some arguments contain no indicators. With these, the reader/listener must ask such questions as: What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others? What is the arguer trying to prove? What is the main point in the passage? The answers to these questions should point to the conclusion. Example: The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. Not only does the national defense depend on it, but the program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs.Furthermore, at current funding levels the program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential. The conclusion of this argument is the ? rst statement, and all of the other statements are premises. The a rgument illustrates the pattern found in most arguments that lack indicator words: the intended conclusion is stated ? rst, and the remaining statements are then o? ered in support of this ? rst statement. When the argument is restructured according to logical principles, however, the conclusion is always listed after the premises: P1: P2: P3: C: The national defense is dependent on the space program. The space program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs.At current funding levels the space program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential. The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. When restructuring arguments such as this, one should remain as close as possible to the original version, while at the same time attending to the requirement that premises and conclusion be complete sentences that are meaningful in the order in which they are listed. Note that the ? rst two premises are included within the scope of a single sentence in the original argument. For the purposes of this chapter, compound arrangements of statements in which the various components are all claimed to be true will be considered as separate statements.Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor conclusions. Only statements that are actually intended to support the conclusion should be included in the list of premises. If, for example, a statement 4 Chapter 1 Basic Concepts Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. erves merely to introduce the general topic, or merely makes a pas sing comment, it should not be taken as part of the argument. Examples: The claim is often made that malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of health care. But if such suits were outlawed or severely restricted, then patients would have no means of recovery for injuries caused by negligent doctors. Hence, the availability of malpractice litigation should be maintained intact. Massive federal deficits push up interest rates for everyone. Servicing the debt gobbles up a huge portion of the federal budget, which lowers our standard of living. And big deficits also weaken the value of the dollar. For these reasons, Congress must make a determined effort to cut overall spending and raise taxes.Politicians who ignore this reality imperil the future of the nation. 1 In the ? rst argument, the opening statement serves merely to introduce the topic, so it is not part of the argument. The premise is the second statement, and the conclusion is the last statement. In the second argument, the ? nal statement merely makes a passing comment, so it is not part of the argument. The premises are the ? rst three statements, and the statement following â€Å"for these reasons† is the conclusion. Closely related to the concepts of argument and statement are those of inference and proposition. An inference, in the narrow sense of the term, is the reasoning process expressed by an argument.In the broad sense of the term, â€Å"inference† is used interchangeably with â€Å"argument. † Analogously, a proposition, in the narrow sense, is the meaning or information content of a statement. For the purposes of this book, however, â€Å"proposition† and â€Å"statement† are used interchangeably. Note on the History of Logic The person who is generally credited as the father of logic is the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 b. c. ). Aristotle’s predecessors had been interested in the art of constructing persuasive arguments and in techniques for refuting the arguments of others, but it was Aristotle who ? rst devised systematic criteria for analyzing and evaluating arguments.Aristotle’s chief accomplishment is called syllogistic logic, a kind of logic in which the fundamental elements are terms, and arguments are evaluated as good or bad depending on how the terms are arranged in the argument. Chapters 4 and 5 of this textbook are devoted mainly to syllogistic logic. But Aristotle also deserves credit for originating modal logic, a kind of logic that involves such concepts as possibility, necessity, belief, and doubt. In addition, Aristotle catalogued several informal fallacies, a topic treated in Chapter 3 of this book. After Aristotle’s death, another Greek philosopher, Chrysippus (280–206 b. c. ), one of the founders of the Stoic school, developed a logic in which the fundamental elements were whole propositions.Chrysippus treated every proposition as either true or false and developed rules for determining the truth or falsity of compound propositions from the truth or falsity of their components. In the course of doing so, he laid the foundation for the truth functional interpretation of the logical connectives presented in Chapter 6 of this book and introduced the notion of natural deduction, treated in Chapter 7. Section 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 5 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 For thirteen hundred years after the death of Chrysippus, relatively little creative work was done in logic. The physician Galen (a. d. 129†“ca. 199) developed the theory of the compound categorical syllogism, but for the most part philosophers con? ned themselves to writing commentaries on the works of Aristotle and Chrysippus. Boethius (ca. 480–524) is a noteworthy example. The ? rst major logician of the Middle Ages was Peter Abelard (1079–1142). Abelard reconstructed and re? ed the logic of Aristotle and Chrysippus as communicated by Boethius, and he originated a theory of universals that traced the universal character of general terms to concepts in the mind rather than to â€Å"natures† existing outside the mind, as Aristotle had held. In addition, Abelard distinguished arguments that are  valid because of their form from those that are valid because of their content, but he held that only formal validity is the â€Å"perfect† or conclusive variety. The present text

The Papaer Java Test Questions and Answers

Gaddis – Starting Out With Java 5 – From Control Structures to Objects Chapter 06 – A First Look At Classes Multiple Choice 1. One or more objects may be created from a(n)_____. a. field b. class c. method d. instance ANS: B 2. Class objects normally have _____ that perform useful operations on their data, but primitive variables do not. a. fields b. instances c. methods d. relationships ANS: C 3. In the cookie cutter method: Think of the _____ as a cookie cutter and _____ as the cookies. a. object; classes b. class; objects c. class; fields d. field; methods ANS: B 4. A UML diagram does not contain _____. . class name b. methods c. fields d. object names ANS: D 5. An access specifier indicates how the class may be accessed. a. True b. False ANS: A 6. Data hiding, which means that critical data stored inside the object is protected from code outside the object is accomplished in Java by _____. a. using the public access specifier on the class methods b. using the private access specifier on the class methods c. using the private access specifier on the class definition d. using the private access specifier on the class fields ANS: D 7. For the following code, which statement is not true? ublic class Sphere { private double radius; public double x; private double y; private double z; } a. x is available to code that is written outside the Sphere class. b. radius is not available to code written outside the Sphere class. c. radius, x, y, and z are called members of the Sphere class. d. z is available to code that is written outside the Sphere class. ANS: D 8. Which of the following is not part of the method header? a. Method name b. Return type c. Access specifier d. Parameter variable declaration e. All of the above are parts of the method header ANS: E 9.A method that stores a value in a class’s field or in some other way changes the value of a field is known as a mutator method. a. True b. False ANS: A 10. You should not define a cl ass field that is dependent upon the values of other class fields _____. a. in order to avoid having stale data b. because it is redundant c. because it should be defined in another class d. in order to keep it current ANS: A 11. The following UML diagram entry means _____ + setHeight(h : double) : void a. this is a public field called Height and is a double data type b. this is a private method with no parameters and returns a double data type c. his is a private field called Height and is a double data type d. this is a public method with a parameter of data type double and does not return a value ANS: D 12. Instance methods should be declared static. a. True b. False ANS: B 13. Methods that operate on an object’s fields are called a. instance variables b. instance methods c. public methods d. private methods ANS: B 14. The scope of a private instance field is a. the instance methods of the same class b. inside the class, but not inside any method c. inside the parentheses of a method header d. the method in which they are defined ANS: A 15.A constructor is a method that is automatically called when an object is created. a. True b. False ANS: A 16. A constructor a. always accepts two arguments b. has return type of void c. has the same name as the class d. always has an access specifier of private ANS: C 17. Shadowing is the term used to describe where the field name is hidden by the name of a local or parameter variable. a. True b. False ANS: A 18. Which of the following statements will create a reference, str, to the String, â€Å"Hello, World†? a. String str = â€Å"Hello, World†; b. string str = â€Å"Hello, World†; c. String str = new â€Å"Hello, World†; . str = â€Å"Hello, World†; ANS: A 19. Two or more methods in a class may have the same name as long as a. they have different return types b. they have different parameter lists c. they have different return types, but the same parameter list d. you cannot ha ve two methods with the same name ANS: B 20. Given the following code, what will be the value of finalAmount when it is displayed? public class Order { private int orderNum; private double orderAmount; private double orderDiscount; public Order(int orderNumber, double orderAmt, double orderDisc) { orderNum = orderNumber; orderAmount = orderAmt; rderDiscount = orderDisc; } } public class CustomerOrder { public static void main(String[] args) { int ordNum = 1234; double ordAmount = 580. 00; double discountPer = 0. 1; Order order; double finalAmount = order. orderAmount – order. orderAmount * order. orderDiscount; System. out. println(â€Å"Final order amount = $† + finalAmount); } } a. 528. 00 b. 580. 00 c. There is no value because the constructor has an error. d. There is no value because the object order has not been created. ANS: D 21. A class specifies the _____ and _____ that a particular type of object has. a. relationships; methods b. ields; object names c. field s; methods d. relationships; object names ANS: C 22. ____ refers to the combining of data and code into a single object. a. Data hiding b. Abstraction c. Object d. Encapsulation ANS: D 23. Another term for an object of a class is ____. a. access specifier b. instance c. member d. method ANS: B 24. In this book the general layout of a UML diagram is a box that is divided into three sections. The top section has the ____; the middle section holds ____; the bottom section holds ____. a. class name; fields; methods b. class name; object name; methods c. object name; fields; methods . object name; methods; fields ANS: A 25. The public access specifier for an field indicates that the field may not be accessed by statements outside the class. a. True b. False ANS: B 26. For the following code, which statement is not true? public class Circle { private double radius; public double x; private double y; } a. x is available to code that is written outside the Circle class. b. radius is not ava ilable to code written outside the Circle class. c. radius, x, and y are called members of the Circle class. d. y is available to code that is written outside the Circle class.ANS: D 27. It is common practice in object-oriented programming to make all of a class’s _____. a. methods private b. fields private c. fields public d. fields and methods public ANS: B 28. After the header, the body of the method appears inside a set of a. brackets, [] b. paretheses, () c. braces, {} d. double quotes, â€Å"† ANS: C 29. A method that gets a value from a class’s field but does not change it is known as a mutator method. a. True b. False ANS: B 30. In UML diagrams, a ____ indicates the member is private and a _____ indicates the member is public. a. *; / b. ; @ c. –; + d. (); : ANS: C 31. In a UML diagram to indicate the data type of a variable enter a. the variable name followed by the data type b. the variable name followed by a colon and the data type c. the class name followed by the variable name followed by the data type d. the data type followed by the variable name ANS: B 32. Instance methods do not have the key word static in their headers. a. True b. False ANS: A 33. When an object is created, the fields associated with the object are called a. instance fields b. instance methods c. fixed fields d. class instancesANS: A 34. A constructor is a method that a. returns an object of the class. b. never receives any arguments. c. with the name (class name). constructor. d. performs initialization or setup operations. ANS: D 35. The term â€Å"default constructor† is applied to any constructor that does not accept arguments. a. True b. False ANS: B 36. The scope of a public instance field is a. only the class in which it is defined b. inside the class, but not inside any method c. inside the parentheses of a method header d. the instance methods and methods outside the class ANS: D 37.When a local variable in an instance method has th e same name as an instance field, the instance field hides the local variable. a. True b. False ANS: B 38. Which of the following statements will create a reference, str, to the string, â€Å"Hello, world†? A. String str = new String(â€Å"Hello, World†); B. String str = â€Å"Hello, world†; a. A b. B c. A and B d. Neither A or B ANS: C 39. Overloading means multiple methods in the same class a. have the same name, but different return types b. have different names, but the same parameter list c. have the same name, but different parameter lists d. perform the same function ANS: C

Perfect Pizzeria: Case study Essay

Job satisfaction is a key driver to corporate success. It is clear that at Perfect Pizzeria employees are dissatisfied with their work environment. In order to overcome job dissatisfaction, one might influence employee motivation by applying the expectancy theory – the theory of motivation that suggests employees are more likely to be motivated when they perceive their efforts will result in successful performance and ultimately, desired rewards and outcomes (McShane and Travaglione 2007, p146). The effort-to-performance (E-to-P) expectancy is the belief that increased effort will lead to increased performance. In the present case, the company has no systemic criteria in hiring and formal training for mangers reduce the capability of performing the job successfully. Also, the indistinct role perception for night managers to perform regular employees’ duties and for assistant managers to learn bookkeeping and management reduce efficiency. In order to strengthen the individual’s belief that s/he is able to perform the task, the company should select the appropriate person with the required skills to do the job and to clearly communicate the tasks required for each position. Furthermore, managers should provide the necessary support to get the job done and to create workforce harmony. The performance-to-outcome (P-to-O) expectancy is the belief that performance at a certain level will result in the attainment of outcomes. The case suggested that employees are not reward based on their performance as they only earn the minimum wage. On the other hand, mangers are rewarded based on the percentage of food unsold or damaged, which is not highly correlated to performance. In order to increase the belief that good performance will result in valued outcome, the company should transparent the process that determines employee’s reward and explain the outcome that will result from the desired performance. Most importantly there should be an accurate measure of job performance in place. The outcome valence (V) is the importance that the individual places upon the expected outcome. Employees may mainly motivated by money and equality, which is deprived at the present situation. In order to ensure rewards are valued by employees, the company should distribute bonus for desired  performance and promote fairness within the company. The MARS model of individual behaviour highlights four factors that influence employees’ behaviour and explain the current resulting performance (McShane and Travaglione 2007, p36). The inequality of reward to performance discourage efforts (motivation), the mismatch of individual competencies with job requirement undermine employees’ performance (ability), the replicate of duties between night managers and regular employees and assistant managers dimmed their assigned tasks (role perceptions), and the retaliatory measures between managers and employees restrains employees to achieve their performance potential. To overcome the motivation problem, the company should promote equality in the distribution of rewards. The Equity theory suggests that employees strive for equity between themselves and other workers, therefore positive outcomes and high levels of motivation can be expected only when employees perceive their treatment to be fair – when the ratio of employee outcomes over inputs is equal to other employee outcomes over inputs (McShane and Travaglione 2007, p154). The first move to adjust the under-reward inequity for employees is to make them engage in organizational citizenship by mobilizing qualified workers to full-time job. The company should have a competency-based reward system in place. When employees show exceptional competence in workforce, their pay will get increase with the skills demonstrated in order to reinforce the probability of that specific behavior – positive reinforcement. On the other hand, instead of having a percentage of food unsold or damaged b onus scheme, managers should be rewarded based on their performance and qualification. This would be an equitable solution for both managers and employees. To overcome the ability problem, the company should select employees whose existing competencies best fit the required tasks. This mismatch of ability can be seen where relatively young and inexperienced managers are performing challenging tasks, whereas having highly educated employees responsible for less challenging tasks. A solution for that is to increase the capability of college qualified employees through job design. Having the required  knowledge and educational background employees may get promote to perform those challenging tasks. To support multi-skilling, the company should exercise job rotation by moving employees from one job to another to enable them to learn several jobs. Moreover, job enlargement also increases skill variety, and work efficiency and flexibility. To ensure high satisfaction and performance, employees need to have autonomy as well as job knowledge. As shown in the case, with the absence of supervisor the unsold or damaged food percentage remained at a low level. This led us to another important point – job enrichment. The heart of job enrichment is to give employees more freedom. To avoid the misuse of freedom, value congruence within the organization become significant, as such all employees share a common value to achieve a common objective. To overcome the problem of role perceptions, the process of goal setting is dominant by clarifying employees their role perceptions by establishing performance objectives (McShane and Travaglione 2007, p149). The goal has to be specific and relevant. For example, the role of night managers is to control the operation in the evenings (relevant) and to report the accurate employee mistake and burned pizza (specific). Yet the night managers should be committed to accomplishing the challenging goal set. This refers back to the E-to-P expectancy, the more belief that the goal can be accomplished, the more committed the night mangers are to the goal. Last but not least, to overcome the tension between managers and employees the building up of organizational commitment is essential. Managers should treat employees with justice and support, in which to retrieve the benefits employees had – free pizzas, salads or drinks to build affective commitment and organizational justice discussed above. In addition the building up of trust is equally important, therefore to intimidate with a lie detector ought to be abolished. Employee feel obliged to work for an organization only when they trust their leaders. Therefore, with high levels of affective commitment employees are less likely to leave the organization, and have a higher work motivation as well as somewhat higher job satisfaction. Reference List McShane, S. and Travaglione, T. (2007), Organizational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, 2nd Edition, North Ryde: McGraw-Hill Australia.

Effects on Saudi Arabia due to the events of the winter of 2010-2011 Research Paper

Effects on Saudi Arabia due to the events of the winter of 2010-2011 - Research Paper Example Saudi allies have fallen out of power in recent months, including former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia responded quickly by distributing about $36 billion in state funds to youth throughout the country, hoping that money would satisfy any lurking desire to follow the examples of other Arab populations. The result, however, of the Arab uprisings has affected the population of Saudi Arabia, as demands for reform are being offered to the government while protests are emerging for different causes but with small turnouts. The list of demands includes lower taxes, better support for those unable to work, a solution to unemployment rates, higher minimum wages, and a cancellation of some restrictions on women (Bar’el). However, this is hardly radical, as this list calls for only a brief number of economic changes and very little social reform, even concerning women. What it lacks is any demand for governmental reform, regime change, civil liberties, or religious freedom. When compared to the revolutions of other Arab states, the issues in Saudi Arabia are of an entirely different nature. These demonstrations, however, have already been met with a violent response, urging them into the same categories of neighboring movements. Human Rights Watch claims that over 160 dissidents have been locked up since February. Protests were not limited to the usual Sunni Muslim citizens of Saudi Arabia, but also consisted of separate movements by Shia members of society who were speaking out against religious intolerance and the imprisonment of peaceful activists. As if reaffirming what the Shia Muslims were protesting, Saudi police made arrests in April that included a prominent intellectual leader of the Shia sect, Al-Saeed al-Majid. (HRW) The Saudi government has been forced into a position of vigilance, as it intends to swift put down any attempt to destabilize the country. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh, a top Muslim authority with close ties to the Saudi royal family, decried the uprisings as â€Å"chaotic acts† that â€Å"have come from the enemies of Islam and those who serve them†. (Saudi) This statement may refer to Western powers, although Saudi Arabia usually depends on the American military for security on its borders and throughout the region—especially in the Gulf. The Gulf itself is in many ways entirely separate from the greater Arab world in that it tends to look inward rather than out. While Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt all have been concerned with their own neighbors as well as what is happening within their borders, Saudi Arabia looks across the Gulf to Iran, a rising Persian Shia power that is the antithesis of the Arab Sunni monarchy in the Arabian Peninsula. The Grand Mufti’s quote may indeed be referring to Iran and the Shia sect as the enemies of Islam, thus supporting Saudi crackdown on Shia protests. Saudi Arabia has taken specific action outside its borders, and has arguably put more focus into its foreign policy over its domestic policy in reaction to the regional uprisings. Saudi Arabia’s neighbor, Bahrain, is a Sunni monarchy as well, but rules over a Shia Muslim majority. In Bahrain, the government faced a grave threat as its citizens sought to uproot the monarchy, and the Saudi

Assignment #3 PKG 381 Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

#3 PKG 381 - Assignment Example Comparably, the creation teachings in Christianity clearly narrate that God created humans so they may have control over other animals. This implies that man should dominate and control other animals, as well as plans and the nonhuman things. The Garden of Eden was given to a man as a habitat where man would live. This signifies the close relationship man and other nonhuman had from the time of creation. However, this misused to man by God has been misused extensively. For example, a person today may kill an animal or clear a forest unjustifiably and claim it is biblically allowed (Clowney & Mosto, 2009).   The Islamic teachings about creation also support the arguments presented by Christianity that man was commissioned to steward other animals. However, Islam goes ahead to explain that every person will account for their actions in relation to the environment. This is the point of dissimilarity between the two religions as far as this issue is concerned. Islam agrees that man has the stewardship role, but the actions must be judged in the end by the creator (Clowney & Mosto,

Matrices Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Matrices - Essay Example It remains to determine if any of the 33 sub matrices of the augmented matrix (B) have a non – zero determinant. For example in a square sub matrix of order 33 of [B], namely, These system of equations are inconsistent, because the rank of the coefficient matrix [A] in which det(D) = 0. Moreover, a 3rd order square sub matrices of [B], namely, , and are such that their corresponding determinants are zero. In other words, all the 3rd order square sub matrices of the augmented matrix [B] have a zero determinant. Therefore, the rank of the augmented matrix [B] is less than 3. Since, there exists a 2nd order square sub matrix of matrix [B], such that det(H) = -120≠ 0, the rank of the augmented matrix [B] is 2. The rank of the coefficient matrix [A], whereis to be determined. Det(A) = 0. Hence, the rank of the coefficient matrix [A] is less than 3. is a square sub matrix of matrix [A] and det (J) = -3 ï‚ ¹ 0. Therefore, the rank of the coefficient matrix [A] is 2. Hence, rank of the coefficient matrix [A] = rank of the augmented matrix [B], accordingly the system of equations given by [A] [X] = [B] is consistent. Nevertheless, the rank of the coefficient matrix [A] = rank of the augmented matrix [B] < 3, therefore there are only 2 constraints; consequently, these equations have infinitely many

EBay expands around the globe Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

EBay expands around the globe - Essay Example This growth has mainly come in the past 8 years. While expanding globally, eBay has exercised a variety and combination of options that it had available in the first place (Thompson, 2003). The following section discusses various options for businesses while expanding. For moving in the international markets, a business has a number of options that can be considered. The consideration is based on various analyses of cost versus benefit being the major highlight (Davis, 2000). Some of the main options that a business may consider while going international are: Franchising is when a foreign business (parent company) deals with a local business to be their representative in the local markets, with the parent company's name, rules, policies and procedures being followed. The local company operates under the name of the parent company, precisely as per their inherent instructions, and earns the parent company earns the royalty from this set up (Shull, 2000). Examples of such an arrangement are often witnessed in the fast food chain set up or even in gas stations. Mergers occur when two or more businesses decide on merging their set of services to compete in a much enhanced form in the industry. In such a form, the businesses unite and the separate existence and identity seizes (Price, 2003). Glaxo Smith Klime (GSK) is the most renowned merger of recent times, with Sony Ericsson being another one. Acquisitions takes place when one firm is taken over by another and the acquiree seizes to exist as the acquirer takes over the operations and assets under its own books. In such a scenario, the acquirer yields various advantages. The extent of the advantages increases further when the acquirer is a foreign entity, acquiring a local entity to enter into the local markets (Carr, 2004). For example, as Royal Bank of (Scotland RBS) took over ABN AMRO, it instantaneously got access to the countries where it had no existence earlier. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) takes place when a business having no existence in a certain region or country decides to enter into the local market for purpose of expanding its operations and taking advantage of an existing opportunity. For the industry in which eBay operates, the two most viable options for expanding are either acquisition or FDI. However, on majority of the occasions, eBay has seemed to preferred acquisition over FDI. The following section discusses the pros and cons of this selection and preference in detail. eBay's Policy: Acquisition Vs FDI eBay while expanding globally has chosen the option of acquisition rather than any other mode of expanding. There have been several critiques on the issue because with the likes of funding available at eBay, the firm could have easily gone in with any mode of expansion. The aim of essay is to critically analyze the pros and cons of acquisition vs. FDI. Following are the main advantages for eBay to choose acquisition over FDI as its preferred strategy to enter into the markets (David, 2002): 1) Existing Infrastructure: The major advantage of

Reaction Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 7

Reaction Paper - Essay Example This is the same reason why Saeko had to seek the help of the doctor after she felt her glue tricks would fail her one day. It is her fear of looking unattractive again that drives her to have cosmetic surgery done (Cullen, â€Å"Changing Faces†). In accordance to the reaction paper, one could clearly pin point the effect of inequities in health care. The number of practitioners that got sued due to medical mishaps related to cosmetic surgery somehow increased over the years due to shoddy jobs done by people not licensed to do so. In poorer places, a lot of people claiming to offer cosmetic surgeries mushroomed and offered people to pay less money for the same services offered by registered practitioners. The unregistered health providers in this poorer areas resulted in increased number of lawsuits due to their poor health service (Cullen, â€Å"Changing Faces†). The poor that wanted to get attractive fell for this unregistered health providers tricks since they offered them low prices for the same services. If not for poverty, this people would have looked for better services from registered cosmetic surgeons. From the film, it is clearly depicted that gender plays a role in health. Women are more likely to seek for health services compared to men. From the sociological perspective, Saeko went to seek the help of a cosmetic surgeon in order to have her eye widened so as to look attractive. In addition, more women in Asian countries are seeking to have their physical appearances made more attractive as westernization sets in and defines beauty in another way. From the film, women tend to have better health seeking behaviour compared to men. Men often are satisfied with the way they look and seek less services related to cosmetic surgery (Cullen, â€Å"Changing Faces†). In addition, Saeko got employed as a hostess in a given bar after she

Why I want to work in Critical Care Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Why I want to work in Critical Care - Essay Example Most patients who are in Intensive Care Unit are not only in severe pain but also have life threatening condition. It is in this situation where patients need the utmost critical care because their lives and well-being are at stake. Without a nurse that would attend to the patient, their health condition will not only deteriorate but worst could also end their lives. As a nurse, my profession matters the most in this situation because the patients needed me the most to save their lives.I am aware that working in Intensive Care Unit will not be easy. Patients who need critical care must have health professionals who are competent and compassionate to look after them to make them better. As a nurse, this job would be very demanding because most cases that we will be handling are life threatening and extreme. This, however, will make me become better as a professional because I will be exposed to difficult cases that would stretch my professional capability thus making me a better nurse .As a personal health professional, I do not only want to excel in my profession but also would like to make a difference in other people’s lives. The best way to make a difference in other people’s lives is to be there both as a professional and a person during the patient’s direst situation. The satisfaction that will be derived from of making patiently’s better during their life-threatening situation cannot be remunerated by any form of compensation but can only be had by a unique opportunity to work.

Dancing in a Winter Wonderland Managing Stakeholders Case Study

Dancing in a Winter Wonderland Managing Stakeholders - Case Study Example There are different theoretical approaches to stakeholder management in an organizational context. They are; agency theory, transaction cost economics, competitive theory, institutional theory, stakeholder theory, and network theory. In the context of event management, it is worth considering the stakeholder theory and the network theory. The stakeholder approach deals basically with groups or individuals who can affect the performance of an organization and whose interests are taken care of by the management (Freeman, 1984; Frooman 1999) Power, legitimacy and urgency are identified as the basic attributes of stakeholders (Mitchell et al 1997) The network approach talks about the positions of different actors created by the links among them. (Thorelli, 1986) A different kind of social relationship among actors is assumed in the network analysis (Galakiewicz, 1996) Thus actors, activities and resources are the basic concepts in a network (Johanson and Associates 1994) The actors in th e network own and control resources and carry out activities by combining resources (Sharma, 1993) While stakeholder theory is mainly static the network theory deals with the dynamic process involved in changing the network. Thus event management encompasses the basic elements of both of these theoretical approaches. Therefore it becomes important that the event is conducted skillfully so that it becomes valuable to all the stakeholders. One of the most cited reasons for the failure of any event is the lack of resources. Lack of resources can be identified by the inability of the event management to attract more sponsors and donors. Thus the success of the events depends largely on the support from stakeholders. This adds to the proposition that the event managers should manage the relationship with the stakeholders more efficiently. The literature on event management has established the relationships between the management of events and the stakeholders (e.g. Getz, 1997; Watt 1998; Long, 2000; Lvendahl, 2000) However it needs to be mentioned that there is no documented evidence of the application of the stakeholder theory in the event management contexts (Reid & Acordia 2002)

Patriot Act Essay Example for Free

Patriot Act Essay To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, a country that is willing to sacrifice civil liberties for safety deserves neither. In the aftermath of September 11, the United States has found itself living that prophetic statement: the country is neither safe nor free. Politicians played on the fears of the American public after the terrorist attack and stole the most basic and trusted of American freedoms: the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Prior to the Patriot Act, anyone arrested by American law enforcement was guaranteed to be charged or released within 48 hours. Then, under the speedy trial provisions of the U. S. Constitution, those who were charged were guaranteed that their cases would progress. This is not so since September 11. This is not the first time in American history that persons living within the United States have been held indefinitely during times of war. Japanese-Americans from southern California were taken to so-called â€Å"detention camps† after the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II. The crime is that we have not learned the lessons of history, that we apologize and in some cases make restitution for the same thing we are now repeating at Guantanimo Bay and in other places around the world. The biggest tragedy of the Patriot Act and the methods used by federal law enforcement in the wake of September 11 is that none of these actions would have prevented the terrorist attacks. Instead, these methodologies encourage people to be more secretive and less open. The only way the attack on the World Trade Center could have been avoided would have been for there to have been a better exchange of information. Perhaps it is a sign that American education is lacking, or evidence that those in power will always seek to increase their power, but the reality is the Patriot Act has not done anything to discourage international terrorism or increase American safety. We have, in fact, sacrificed our freedom and in return lost both it and our safety.

Science Investigatory Project Essay Example for Free

Science Investigatory Project Essay Dissatisfaction and discouragement are not caused by the absence of vision. Many things from afar are cannot be seen by the naked eye. Unlike cameras, eyes don’t have the capacity to magnify or zoom. In today’s generation, many people call for the use of binoculars but not everyone can afford. Due to this problem, the researchers decided to conduct this study â€Å"Improvised Binoculars out of worn-out gadgets.† To seek an alternative and affordable binoculars. Binoculars are a pair of identical or mirror-symmetrical telescopes mounted side-by-side and aligned to point accurately in the same direction, allowing the viewer to use both eyes when viewing distant objects. Most are sized to be held using both hands, although sizes may vary from opera glasses to large pedestal mounted military model unlike a telescope, binoculars give users a 3 dimensional image: for nearer objects the two views, presented to each of the viewer’s eyes from slightly different viewpoints, produce a merged view with an impression of depth. Modern binoculars consist of two barrel chambers with an objective lens, eyepiece and a prism inside. The prisms reflect and lengthen the light while the objective lenses enhance and magnify images due to stereoscopic vision. As telescopes were improved, binoculars evolved. Binoculars consist of an objective lens and eyepiece with two facing, right angle prisms arranged to invert and correct two facing, right angle prisms arranged to invert and correct the orientation of the image. The applications of binoculars are vast, ranging from being used in military operations to leisure activities. A must for bird-watchers and hunters, bi noculars are even used at sporting events by spectators who may be seated far from the action, thus using binoculars to get clearer and closer views of the action. Many tourist destinations around the world also have swivel-mounted binoculars to allow tourists to get better views of distant objects. In professional situations, militaries use binoculars for day-to-day operations. Binoculars are essential for them as with the binoculars, the military personnel would be able to spot enemies at a distant and take the necessary action. Not only that, they can also safeguard their territory and prevent and intruders from coming in. Their use, together with sophisticated 21st century technology makes the military much more efficient than it previously was. Statement of the Problem The main purpose of the study is top produce a simple improvised binocular. The researchers aim to answer the following questions: a. What are the methods to be used in constructing simple prism binoculars? b. Are binoculars a good magnifier? c. Compare the improvised prism binocular with commercial binoculars. Hypotheses * Null Hypotheses (Ho) There is no significant difference between the images magnified on the improvised prism binoculars and that on the commercial binoculars. * Alternative Hypotheses (Ha) There is a significant difference between the images magnified on the improvised prism binoculars and that on the commercial binoculars. Significance of the Study Binoculars are a handheld optical instrument composed of two telescopes and a focusing device, and usually having a prism to increase magnifying ability. Binoculars are used to view distant objects using both eyes. The applications of binoculars are vast, ranging from being used in military operations to leisure activities. A must for bird-watchers and hunters, binoculars are even used at sporting events by spectators who may be seated far from the action, thus using binoculars to get clearer and closer views of the action. Many tourist destinations around the world also have swivel-mounted binoculars to allow tourists to get better views of distant objects. An example can be the Grand Canyon, where tourists would not be able to see far away objects, thus these binoculars have been installed for the convenience of the tourists. In professional situations, militaries use binoculars for day-to-day operations. Binoculars are essential for them as with the binoculars, the military person nel would be able to spot enemies at a distant and take the necessary action. Not only that, they can also safeguard their territory and prevent and intruders from coming in. This will give the researchers an idea of making improvised prism binoculars. Some consider cans, lenses from worn-out gadgets and caps of plastic bottles as waste and there is nothing to do with them. But these materials can be a good raw material that has the potential in making improvised binoculars, which will help to see distant objects, instead of buying those expensive binoculars. This is the reason why the researchers will make an improvised prism binocular. Scope and Delimitation This study will only focus on making improvised prism binoculars from gadgets that are no longer in use or worn out. This study will show the steps and the procedures to make simple prism binoculars and show the comparison between the said binoculars and the commercial ones. II. A. Review of Related Literature History of binoculars Almost from the invention of the telescope in 17th century the advantages of mounting two of them side by side for binocular vision seems to have been explored. Most early binoculars used Galilean optics; that is, they used a convex objective and a concave eyepiece lens. The Galilean design has the advantage of presenting an erect image but has a narrow field of view and is not capable of very high magnification. This type of construction is still used in very cheap models in and in opera glasses or theater glasses. The Galilean design is also used in low magnification binocular surgical and jewelers loupes because they can be very short and produce an upright image without extra or unordinary erecting optics, reducing expense and overall weight. They also have large exit pupils making centering less critical and the narrow field of view works well in those applications these are typically mounted on an eye-to-eye glass frame or custom-fit onto eye glasses. An improved image and high er magnification can be achieved in binoculars employing keplerian optics, where the image formed by the objective lens is viewed through a positive eyepiece lens (ocular). This configuration has the disadvantage that the image is inverted. Porro prism binoculars are named after Italian optician Ignazio Porro who patented this image erecting system in 1854 and later refined by makers like the Carl Zeiss Company in the 1890’s. Binoculars of this type use a porro prism in a double prism Z-shaped configuration to erect the image. This feature results in binoculars that are wide, with objective lenses that are well separated but offset from the eyepieces. Porro prism designs have the added benefit of folding the optical path so that the physical length of the binoculars is less than the focal length of the objective and wider spacing of the objectives give a better sensation of depth. Thus, the size of the binoculars is reduced. Binoculars using roof prisms may have appeared as early as the 1870’s in a design by Achille Victor Emile daubresse. Most roof prism binoculars use either the Abbe-Koenig prism (named after Ernst Karl Abbe and Albert Koenig and patented by Carl Zeiss in 1905) or Schmidt-Pechan prism (invented in 1899) designs to erect the image and fold the optical path. They have objective lenses that are approximately in line with the eyepieces. Binoculars tend to come in two main styles, the Roof Prism and the Porro Prism design, both have their unique advantages and disadvantages over each other and so often it will be down to your specific needs and preferences as to which you should choose. Roof Prism Binoculars one of the two main styles of binoculars is the Roof Prism (the other being Porro Prism), this refers to the type of prism used in their construction. In this design the prisms are aligned with each other in a straight line, and thus they tend to be sleeker and more compact binoculars than the Porro prism design. You can easily identify a roof prism binocular as the eyepieces and the large objective lenses line up with each other. Roof Prism Binoculars Advantages: * Compact Design * Less internal parts than porro prism design, so less to go wrong and easier to make dust and waterproof. Disadvantages: * The image quality of roof-prism binoculars can suffer slightly because of the aligned prisms, although the top models of the roof-prism and porro-prism binoculars are now generally considered to have equal optical quality. To be really good, roof prism binoculars have to be in the high price range. Do not attempt to economize on roof prism binoculars. * Good for Ideal general use binoculars that can be used for bird-watching, wildlife viewing and at sporting events. Porro Prism Binoculars It is easy to identify a Porro Prism binocular because the eyepieces and the objective lenses are offset from each other (objective lens is not in line with the ocular lens), this is because of the design of the prism (porro) used in its construction. Advantages: †¢ Porro prisms have objective lenses spaced wider than roof prisms, and so can produce a slightly better stereoscopic image than the roof prism design. †¢ Cheaper to make quality porro prisms than roof prisms so they tend to be cheaper to buy. Disadvantages: †¢ Less compact design than roof prism binoculars †¢ More moving parts, more to go wrong and harder to make fully water and dust proof. Good For Like the roof prisms, porro prism binoculars make perfect general use optics ideal for things like bird-watching, wildlife viewing and at sporting events. Review of Related Studies Creating Binoculars The prismatic telescope is an astronomical telescope plus a pair of prisms for erecting the image. The most common example of this type of construction is the binocular instrument. One half of a binocular is a monocular. Some telescopes are used for a specific purpose and are named accordingly. A typical example is a spotting scope, which is used to view the target in rifle shooting. Prisms: Prisms are polished, angular pieces of glass, the kind commonly used in telescopes being 45-45-90-deg. prisms. The long side is the face, while the two short sides are the reflecting surfaces. The size of the prism is the width of the face Made specifically for telescopes, the prisms are grooved across the face in order to make a definite dividing line and avoid ghost images which would be caused by overlapping rays at this point. The ends are usually rounded to conserve space. The prime advantage of the prism erecting system is compactness. It adds somewhat to the bulk of the instrument but shor tens the length considerably. The prism glass has an elusive quality of brilliance but actually the light loss through the two prisms is somewhat greater than through the two erecting lenses of a lens erecting system. The 23X prismatic spotting scope This design calls for a 20-in. focal length objective, which, with a 22-mm. focal length eyepiece (from Army 6X), gives 23-diameter magnification. Prisms are 1-in. face. The scope body is of wood construction in simple box form. The first prism, the one the light strikes first, is located in an upright position at the back of the box; the second prism is mounted flat on the box bottom. Plywood spacers hold the prisms in place and also provide for the passage of the cone of light admitted by the objective. The eyepiece is fitted in a threaded mount. This type of focusing is satisfactory at set distances but is much too slow for general use. If you want this scope for general observation, it should be fitted with spiral focusing like the 10X monocular to be described later. It would also be practical to focus with a simple draw tube system. The principal point of the construction is to get the various holes lined up square. Use prism center lines as a guide and locate all holes from one master pattern drawn on cardboard Base on which the floor flange is mounted pivots on a carriage bolt and is tilted by means of a tilting screw. Designing- prismatic telescopes Designing your own prismatic telescopes follows much the same procedure as used for astronomical and terrestrials. Primary consideration should be given the objective and eyepiece. The prisms contribute nothing to the magnification; therefore, the power you want must be obtained entirely by the ratio of FO to FE. Prisms should be of such a size or so located as to receive the full cone of light from the objective, although it is practical to sacrifice extreme edge rays. The layout (at top of drawing) is what you make to determine the size and location of prisms and also the general overall dimensions. In this example, the objective has a 52-mm. diameter by 193-mm. focal length (from Navy 7X binocular) and the prisms are 1-in. face (from Navy 7X). As used by the Navy, this glass has a 27-mm. eyepiece, which gives a magnification of 7 diameters. If you want higher magnification, you have to use a shorter focus eyepiece. The Army 6X binocular eyepiece, 22 mm, could be used and would giv e you 9X. The eyepiece shown uses an Army binocular eye lens, but a shorter focus field lens, the combination giving 20-mm. focus, hence, about 10X magnification. The preliminary calculation should determine the exit pupil and luminosity. This glass has excellent illumination at 92 percent. However, Don’t get the idea that the 13 percent rating of the 23X spotting scope is hopeless—13 percent is a good value for anything over 20X magnification. It is worth mentioning here that prism instruments are often rated for illumination on the basis of the exit pupil squared. Thus, if the scope has a 5-mm. exit pupil, it would be rated 25. Using this calculation, the 100 percent standard would be the normal size of the eye pupil, squared: 25 for daylight and 49 for night. Bench setup Set up the objective and focus on well-lighted copy or a bare light bulb, not less than 20 ft. from lens. Use tracing or waxed paper as a ground glass to pick up the image as in Fig. 49. Measure the distance from the rear side of the objective to the image plane. Start your layout and transfer this dimension to the layout. Next, put the two prisms face to face and move the assembly back and forth until you pick up a sharp image of the copy or light bulb. Measure the distance to the face of the first prism and set off this distance on your layout, now you will note that the distance the light travels through a 1-in. prism is 2 in., a total oX 4 in. for both prisms. Set off this distance, C, on your layout to establish the back image plane. Determine the image size. In this instance, the multiplying factor is .070, and this figure multiplied by the focal length of the lens (7% in.) gives .53 in. for the image size. Call this Ha in. for an even figure and mark the image size at the normal image plane and again at the back image plane, as indicated by L. Draw lines K and M representing the marginal rays and the full cone of light. Your prisms must catch the marginal rays K and also as much of the weaker edge rays as possible. The best way to determine prism-placement is to make -two 1 by 2-in. oblongs of cardboard or celluloid. Manipulate these over your layout. The forward edge of the first oblong represents the face of the first prism. You can tell at a glance how far forward you can push it and still pick up the marginal rays. The distance between the two oblongs is the spacing between the prisms. The distance between the back edge of the second oblong and the back image plane must be sufficient to permit focusing. What you finally arrive at in this case is D, %s-in. allowance for the distance the image plane will set inside the eyepiece tube; E, % in. for focusing travel; F, %-in. prism spaci ng; G, 2 in., the distance through the second prism; H, %-in. prism spacing again, coming back; I, 2 in. for the first prism, arriving at J,-the face of the first prism. This may sound complicated, but it is really very simple if you are actually on the job. If desired, you can now draw an outline of the prisms. This shows both prisms flat; the same way you test them in the bench setup. At this point J, it will be noted that the face of the prism catches all of the marginal rays and about halfway out to the lines representing the full cone of light. As mentioned before, it is practical to sacrifice some or all of the weak edge rays, so that this placement of the first prism face is quite satisfactory. What next? Well, you know that the maximum cone of light you can catch on the first prism is 1 in. in diameter at J, so lines drawn from here to image size at the back image plane will establish guide lines for hole diameters needed to pass this same cone of light back to the image pla ne. These lines are marked N in the drawing, and O, for example, shows the diameter of the hole at the back face of the second prism. If you want to use one or more glare stops ahead of the prisms, the hole diameters are determined in the same way, as at P. Monocular construction You will need two wood blocks exactly 1 in. thick to house the prisms. The Vs-ia spacing between prisms is taken up by a spacer of %-in. plywood, and similar plywood pieces are used at the back and front of the housing. The whole thing is glued up like a triple Decker sandwich, the prisms being held securely in the cutouts and between the various layers. Work carefully to prism center lines. Be sure that prisms are exactly at right angles since any rotation here will rotate your image twice as much. Prisms must be spotlessly clean and polished. The eyepiece tube is 1 in. in diameter, this size permitting it to work alongside No. 1 prism; Focusing is by means of a spiral groove cut half way across the eyepiece. Shows the monocular partly assembled and also shows how the turning which joins the main tube to the prism housing is cut away to fit over the second prism covered with a gray pebble-grain oilcloth. General notes Cut the main tube long when making any prism telescope. Check the final position of the objective by actually using the instrument; run the eyepiece in as far as it will go and then place the objective so that distant objects are in focus. Then the full focusing range is available e for picking up nearer objects. The 23X spotting scope £ will focus down to about 40 ft.; the 10X monocular to about 30 ft. or even 20 if you want to make it that way. If you use spiral focusing, it is necessary to know in advance how much you will need for focusing. This travel will be very short with a short focus lens, but much longer with a long focus objective. Allow % in. for lenses less than 10-in. focus; % in., up to 14-in. focus; 1% in. at 18 and 1% in. at 20. These allowances will let you focus down to 30 or 40 ft. in all cases, -possibly closer. When you make a bench setup at close range , remember that this represents the maximum extension of your telescope. If you make a bench setup by focusing on a distant object (this is advisable if you are using an objective of over 20-in. focal length) the setup will represent the telescope at its shortest draw. The Kellne r type of eyepiece gives best results with all prismatic instruments. The objective should always be a cemented achromat. If the lens is not cemented l^^^^^^^ M when you get it, you can dummy test it by cementing with glycerin. Final cementing should be done with Canadian balsam; i n a pinch you can use a good grade of water white (clear) lacquer. The diameter of the objective controls the luminosity of the telescope. The diameter of the objective does not control the field of view; except in the Galilean instrument, you can see just as much through, a small objective as a large one.