For Day 2 Homework Cover Sheet Name:_________________________________________________ 1. Read Pages from 19-33, or watch the videos listed below.  Decimal Number System http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntpehqS5ejA (12 min)  Natural through Complex Numbers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH946PzUGIg (13 min) 2. Attempt problems on workbook pages 3-6 Summary of the lectures you watched. List any parts of the video lecture (if there are any) that were unclear or you had trouble understanding. Please be specific and do not just say “All of it”. Questions you had difficulty with or felt stuck on- ALEKS topic number from this sheet that you were stuck on- ALEKS topics to be mastered (13 topics) Converting a decimal to a fraction: Basic Expanded form Expanded form with zeros Multiplication by 10, 100, and 1000 Numeral translation: Problem type 1 Numeral translation: Problem type 2 Whole number place value: Problem type 1 Whole number place value: Problem type 2 Writing a decimal and a fraction for a shaded region Writing a signed number for a real-world situation Writing ratios for real-world situations Decimal place value: Hundreds to ten thousandths Decimal place value: Tenths and hundredths

## For Day 2 Homework Cover Sheet Name:_________________________________________________ 1. Read Pages from 19-33, or watch the videos listed below.  Decimal Number System http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntpehqS5ejA (12 min)  Natural through Complex Numbers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH946PzUGIg (13 min) 2. Attempt problems on workbook pages 3-6 Summary of the lectures you watched. List any parts of the video lecture (if there are any) that were unclear or you had trouble understanding. Please be specific and do not just say “All of it”. Questions you had difficulty with or felt stuck on- ALEKS topic number from this sheet that you were stuck on- ALEKS topics to be mastered (13 topics) Converting a decimal to a fraction: Basic Expanded form Expanded form with zeros Multiplication by 10, 100, and 1000 Numeral translation: Problem type 1 Numeral translation: Problem type 2 Whole number place value: Problem type 1 Whole number place value: Problem type 2 Writing a decimal and a fraction for a shaded region Writing a signed number for a real-world situation Writing ratios for real-world situations Decimal place value: Hundreds to ten thousandths Decimal place value: Tenths and hundredths

No expert has answered this question yet. You can browse … Read More...
A fast food chain store conducted a taste survey before marketing a new hamburger. The results of the survey showed that 70% of the people who tried it liked the hamburger. Assume that 70% of all people like this hamburger. On a certain day, 8 customers bought it for the first time. Find the probability that at least 3people like the hamburger.

## A fast food chain store conducted a taste survey before marketing a new hamburger. The results of the survey showed that 70% of the people who tried it liked the hamburger. Assume that 70% of all people like this hamburger. On a certain day, 8 customers bought it for the first time. Find the probability that at least 3people like the hamburger.

Which communication method can be effective both during the day and at night? Select one: a. All of these can be effective both during the day and at night. b. tactile c. visual d. auditory e. chemical

## Which communication method can be effective both during the day and at night? Select one: a. All of these can be effective both during the day and at night. b. tactile c. visual d. auditory e. chemical

Info@checkyourstudy.com                                                                                                                                                                                       : All of these can be effective both during … Read More...

Toyota Motor Corporation  Ever since 1957, after the Crown was … Read More...
1 | P a g e Lecture #2: Abortion (Warren) While studying this topic, we will ask whether it is morally permissible to intentionally terminate a pregnancy and, if so, whether certain restrictions should be placed upon such practices. Even though we will most often be speaking of terminating a fetus, biologists make further classifications: the zygote is the single cell resulting from the fusion of the egg and the sperm; the morula is the cluster of cells that travels through the fallopian tubes; the blastocyte exists once an outer shell of cells has formed around an inner group of cells; the embryo exists once the cells begin to take on specific functions (around the 15th day); the fetus comes into existence in the 8th week when the embryo gains a basic structural resemblance to the adult. Given these distinctions, there are certain kinds of non-fetal abortion—such as usage of RU-486 (the morning-after “abortion pill”)—though most of the writers we will study refer to fetal abortions. So now let us consider the “Classical Argument against Abortion”, which has been very influential: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is an innocent person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. (Note that this argument has received various formulations, including those from Warren and Thomson which differ from the above. For this course, we will refer to the above formulation as the “Classical Argument”.) Before evaluating this argument, we should talk about terminology: A person is a member of the moral community; i.e., someone who has rights and/or duties. ‘Persons’ is the plural of ‘person’. ‘Person’ can be contrasted with ‘human being’; a human being is anyone who is genetically human (i.e., a member of Homo sapiens). ‘People’ (or ‘human beings’) is the plural of ‘human being’. Why does this matter? First, not all persons are human beings. For example, consider an alien from another planet who mentally resembled us. If he were to visit Earth, it would be morally reprehensible to kick him or to set him on fire because of the pain and suffering that these acts would cause. And, similarly, the alien would be morally condemnable if he were to propagate such acts on us; he has a moral duty not to act in those ways (again, assuming a certain mental resemblance to us). So, even though this alien is not a human being, he is nevertheless a person with the associative rights and/or duties. 2 | P a g e And, more controversially, maybe not all human beings are persons. For example, anencephalic infants—i.e., ones born without cerebral cortexes and therefore with severely limited cognitive abilities—certainly do not have duties since they are not capable of rational thought and autonomous action. Some philosophers have even argued that they do not have rights. Now let us return to the Classical Argument. It is valid insofar as, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But maybe it commits equivocation, which is to say that it uses the same word in multiple senses; equivocation is an informal fallacy (i.e., attaches to arguments that are formally valid but otherwise fallacious). Consider the following: P1) I put my money in the bank. P2) The bank borders the river. C) I put my money somewhere that borders the river. This argument equivocates since ‘bank’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used to represent a financial institution and, in P2, it is used to represent a geological feature. Returning to the classical argument, it could be argued that ‘person’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used in its appropriate moral sense and, in P2, it is inappropriately used instead of ‘human being’. The critic might suggest that a more accurate way to represent the argument would be as follows: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a human being. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. This argument is obviously invalid. So one way to criticize the Classical Argument is to say that it conflates two different concepts—viz., ‘person’ and ‘human being’—and therefore commits equivocation. However, the more straightforward way to attack the Classical Argument is just to deny its second premise and thus contend that the argument is unsound. This is the approach that Mary Anne Warren takes in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. Why does Warren think that the second premise is false? Remember that we defined a person as “a member of the moral community.” And we said that an alien, for example, could be afforded moral status even though it is not a human being. Why do we think that this alien should not be tortured or set on fire? Warren thinks that, intuitively, we think that membership in the moral community is based upon possession of the following traits: 3 | P a g e 1. Consciousness of objects and events external and/or internal to the being and especially the capacity to feel pain; 2. Reasoning or rationality (i.e., the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated activity (i.e., activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. Capacity to communicate (not necessarily verbal or linguistic); and 5. Possession of self-concepts and self-awareness. Warren then admits that, though all of the items on this list look promising, we need not require that a person have all of the items on this list. (4) is perhaps the most expendable: imagine someone who is fully paralyzed as well as deaf, these incapacities, which preclude communication, are not sufficient to justify torture. Similarly, we might be able to imagine certain psychological afflictions that negate (5) without compromising personhood. Warren suspects that (1) and (2) are might be sufficient to confer personhood, and thinks that (1)-(3) “quite probably” are sufficient. Note that, if she is right, we would not be able to torture chimps, let us say, but we could set plants on fire (and most likely ants as well). However, given Warren’s aims, she does not need to specify which of these traits are necessary or sufficient for personhood; all that she wants to observe is that the fetus has none of them! Therefore, regardless of which traits we want to require, Warren thinks that the fetus is not a person. Therefore she thinks that the Classical Argument is unsound and should be rejected. Even if we accept Warren’s refutation of the second premise, we might be inclined to say that, while the fetus is not (now) a person, it is a potential person: the fetus will hopefully mature into a being that possesses all five of the traits on Warren’s list. We might then propose the following adjustment to the Classical Argument: P1) It is wrong to kill all innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. However, this argument is invalid. Warren grants that potentiality might serve as a prima facie reason (i.e., a reason that has some moral weight but which might be outweighed by other considerations) not to abort a fetus, but potentiality alone is insufficient to grant the fetus a moral right against being terminated. By analogy, consider the following argument: 4 | P a g e P1) The President has the right to declare war. P2) Mary is a potential President. C) Mary has the right to declare war. This argument is invalid since the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. By parity, the following argument is also invalid: P1) A person has a right to life. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) A fetus has a right to life. Thus Warren thinks that considerations of potentiality are insufficient to undermine her argument that fetuses—which are potential persons but, she thinks, not persons—do not have a right to life.

## 1 | P a g e Lecture #2: Abortion (Warren) While studying this topic, we will ask whether it is morally permissible to intentionally terminate a pregnancy and, if so, whether certain restrictions should be placed upon such practices. Even though we will most often be speaking of terminating a fetus, biologists make further classifications: the zygote is the single cell resulting from the fusion of the egg and the sperm; the morula is the cluster of cells that travels through the fallopian tubes; the blastocyte exists once an outer shell of cells has formed around an inner group of cells; the embryo exists once the cells begin to take on specific functions (around the 15th day); the fetus comes into existence in the 8th week when the embryo gains a basic structural resemblance to the adult. Given these distinctions, there are certain kinds of non-fetal abortion—such as usage of RU-486 (the morning-after “abortion pill”)—though most of the writers we will study refer to fetal abortions. So now let us consider the “Classical Argument against Abortion”, which has been very influential: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is an innocent person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. (Note that this argument has received various formulations, including those from Warren and Thomson which differ from the above. For this course, we will refer to the above formulation as the “Classical Argument”.) Before evaluating this argument, we should talk about terminology: A person is a member of the moral community; i.e., someone who has rights and/or duties. ‘Persons’ is the plural of ‘person’. ‘Person’ can be contrasted with ‘human being’; a human being is anyone who is genetically human (i.e., a member of Homo sapiens). ‘People’ (or ‘human beings’) is the plural of ‘human being’. Why does this matter? First, not all persons are human beings. For example, consider an alien from another planet who mentally resembled us. If he were to visit Earth, it would be morally reprehensible to kick him or to set him on fire because of the pain and suffering that these acts would cause. And, similarly, the alien would be morally condemnable if he were to propagate such acts on us; he has a moral duty not to act in those ways (again, assuming a certain mental resemblance to us). So, even though this alien is not a human being, he is nevertheless a person with the associative rights and/or duties. 2 | P a g e And, more controversially, maybe not all human beings are persons. For example, anencephalic infants—i.e., ones born without cerebral cortexes and therefore with severely limited cognitive abilities—certainly do not have duties since they are not capable of rational thought and autonomous action. Some philosophers have even argued that they do not have rights. Now let us return to the Classical Argument. It is valid insofar as, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But maybe it commits equivocation, which is to say that it uses the same word in multiple senses; equivocation is an informal fallacy (i.e., attaches to arguments that are formally valid but otherwise fallacious). Consider the following: P1) I put my money in the bank. P2) The bank borders the river. C) I put my money somewhere that borders the river. This argument equivocates since ‘bank’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used to represent a financial institution and, in P2, it is used to represent a geological feature. Returning to the classical argument, it could be argued that ‘person’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used in its appropriate moral sense and, in P2, it is inappropriately used instead of ‘human being’. The critic might suggest that a more accurate way to represent the argument would be as follows: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a human being. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. This argument is obviously invalid. So one way to criticize the Classical Argument is to say that it conflates two different concepts—viz., ‘person’ and ‘human being’—and therefore commits equivocation. However, the more straightforward way to attack the Classical Argument is just to deny its second premise and thus contend that the argument is unsound. This is the approach that Mary Anne Warren takes in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. Why does Warren think that the second premise is false? Remember that we defined a person as “a member of the moral community.” And we said that an alien, for example, could be afforded moral status even though it is not a human being. Why do we think that this alien should not be tortured or set on fire? Warren thinks that, intuitively, we think that membership in the moral community is based upon possession of the following traits: 3 | P a g e 1. Consciousness of objects and events external and/or internal to the being and especially the capacity to feel pain; 2. Reasoning or rationality (i.e., the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated activity (i.e., activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. Capacity to communicate (not necessarily verbal or linguistic); and 5. Possession of self-concepts and self-awareness. Warren then admits that, though all of the items on this list look promising, we need not require that a person have all of the items on this list. (4) is perhaps the most expendable: imagine someone who is fully paralyzed as well as deaf, these incapacities, which preclude communication, are not sufficient to justify torture. Similarly, we might be able to imagine certain psychological afflictions that negate (5) without compromising personhood. Warren suspects that (1) and (2) are might be sufficient to confer personhood, and thinks that (1)-(3) “quite probably” are sufficient. Note that, if she is right, we would not be able to torture chimps, let us say, but we could set plants on fire (and most likely ants as well). However, given Warren’s aims, she does not need to specify which of these traits are necessary or sufficient for personhood; all that she wants to observe is that the fetus has none of them! Therefore, regardless of which traits we want to require, Warren thinks that the fetus is not a person. Therefore she thinks that the Classical Argument is unsound and should be rejected. Even if we accept Warren’s refutation of the second premise, we might be inclined to say that, while the fetus is not (now) a person, it is a potential person: the fetus will hopefully mature into a being that possesses all five of the traits on Warren’s list. We might then propose the following adjustment to the Classical Argument: P1) It is wrong to kill all innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. However, this argument is invalid. Warren grants that potentiality might serve as a prima facie reason (i.e., a reason that has some moral weight but which might be outweighed by other considerations) not to abort a fetus, but potentiality alone is insufficient to grant the fetus a moral right against being terminated. By analogy, consider the following argument: 4 | P a g e P1) The President has the right to declare war. P2) Mary is a potential President. C) Mary has the right to declare war. This argument is invalid since the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. By parity, the following argument is also invalid: P1) A person has a right to life. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) A fetus has a right to life. Thus Warren thinks that considerations of potentiality are insufficient to undermine her argument that fetuses—which are potential persons but, she thinks, not persons—do not have a right to life.

Engineering Ethics Steve is updating the HVAC system in his house. The house is older and quite large. It will likely require new zoning as temperatures vary considerably throughout the home. His friend, Terry, owns a small HVAC company and tells Steve that new zoning is going to be difficult without doing major construction. However, there are some things that could be done to improve the temperature disparities throughout the house but “it will be far from perfect.” He quotes Steve a very favorable “friend discount” for the job. For good measure, Steve enlists a larger and more reputable firm to bid on the job as well. The company sends out their best project engineer, Bobby, to see if anything can be done to zone the house effectively and efficiently. Bobby spends the day at the house trying to come up with a creative solution for the problem. Bobby appears very committed to finding a solution and is genuinely excited and enthusiastic about the challenge. A week later Bobby returns with an elaborate and creative proposal for Steve. Bobby assures Steve that this solution will correct the temperature disparities and guarantees that he will work above and beyond to make sure the job is done to near perfection. Steve is very impressed with the design that Bobby has come up with but needs to think about it because the cost is more than he intended to spend. Steve tells his friend Terry about the proposal and Terry says that it is a “genius” idea. He also tells him that he will do the job using Bobby’s design for half the price. Steve did not sign any agreement with Bobby’s company; however, Bobby invested a tremendous amount of time and energy on the design. Bobby is very committed to his job and as has a tendency to trust people as evidenced by the fact that he let Steve make a copy of his detailed proposal that included his drawings. Bobby’s philosophy is to trust people “unless they give you a reason not to.” Using two moral theories, one of them being Kant’s deontology, try to determine the best course of action for Steve by constructing a brief ethical argument. Also, make sure to include the perspective of all three parties involved.

## Engineering Ethics Steve is updating the HVAC system in his house. The house is older and quite large. It will likely require new zoning as temperatures vary considerably throughout the home. His friend, Terry, owns a small HVAC company and tells Steve that new zoning is going to be difficult without doing major construction. However, there are some things that could be done to improve the temperature disparities throughout the house but “it will be far from perfect.” He quotes Steve a very favorable “friend discount” for the job. For good measure, Steve enlists a larger and more reputable firm to bid on the job as well. The company sends out their best project engineer, Bobby, to see if anything can be done to zone the house effectively and efficiently. Bobby spends the day at the house trying to come up with a creative solution for the problem. Bobby appears very committed to finding a solution and is genuinely excited and enthusiastic about the challenge. A week later Bobby returns with an elaborate and creative proposal for Steve. Bobby assures Steve that this solution will correct the temperature disparities and guarantees that he will work above and beyond to make sure the job is done to near perfection. Steve is very impressed with the design that Bobby has come up with but needs to think about it because the cost is more than he intended to spend. Steve tells his friend Terry about the proposal and Terry says that it is a “genius” idea. He also tells him that he will do the job using Bobby’s design for half the price. Steve did not sign any agreement with Bobby’s company; however, Bobby invested a tremendous amount of time and energy on the design. Bobby is very committed to his job and as has a tendency to trust people as evidenced by the fact that he let Steve make a copy of his detailed proposal that included his drawings. Bobby’s philosophy is to trust people “unless they give you a reason not to.” Using two moral theories, one of them being Kant’s deontology, try to determine the best course of action for Steve by constructing a brief ethical argument. Also, make sure to include the perspective of all three parties involved.

info@checkyourstudy.com