4. In the introduction to the Punctuation Made Simple website, what analogy is used to explain the way punctuation works? What, exactly, about punctuation does this analogy illustrate?

4. In the introduction to the Punctuation Made Simple website, what analogy is used to explain the way punctuation works? What, exactly, about punctuation does this analogy illustrate?

As equivalence, consider of the traffic signs that administer the … Read More...
Prepare a five page (minimum) paper along with a cover page, a summary (as noted below) and reference page, on a Landmark Supreme Court Case that dealt with Aboriginal rights in Canada within the past 25 years (e.g. choose from those covered in Oct. 22rd class or another one if you find one that was not addressed but fits the criteria of a Supreme Court case that dealt with Aboriginal rights in Canada within the past 25 years). You can complete the assignment as a written paper (1.5 space/12 point font Times New Roman x 4 pages) or you can use points. In either method, provide a detailed response to each of the questions listed below. In addition to the paper that you will submit for grading, prepare a one page summary/cover page that you will present in class on November 12th and share with the other ANIS3006 students (handout, there are 18 students registered in the course). Frame your paper within the context of the following quotes: “Even when we win we lose.” (Chief Dean Sayers, Batchewana First Nation, commenting on Anishinabe experience in Canadian courts). “For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself [himself] and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives here. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices.” (Audre Lorde, feminist) In your paper, answer this broader question: How has the case you’ve selected served to advance Anishinabe rights in Canada? Describe what was gained and consider at what cost (“Even when we win, we lose.”) Address the following, and add anything that you find significant about the case, its process, its outcome and subsequent impact: • What was the basis of the court case? • What happened (e.g. Anishinabe people charged, by who, what charge)? • Who took the issue to court (who was the claimant, against who)? • What was the basis of the claim (be specific)? How was the issue framed/presented? • Who supported the court case (locally, regionally, nationally)? How did they support it? What was the impact of their support (e.g. political, financial, public awareness, protests, etc.)? • How long did it take from initiating the claim to decision (specific dates, chronology)? • What happened? What was the lower court’s decision? How did the case move through to the Supreme Court? What was the final Supreme Court decisions? • What did the Supreme Court’s decision mean in terms of Aboriginal rights in Canada? (What was gained, what was lost)? • Anything else of note relating to the case, its process or outcome. • Answer if and how the Supreme Court decision formed the basis for changes in Canadian government policies or practice concerning Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. In other words, what has the outcome of the Supreme Court decision been to date?

Prepare a five page (minimum) paper along with a cover page, a summary (as noted below) and reference page, on a Landmark Supreme Court Case that dealt with Aboriginal rights in Canada within the past 25 years (e.g. choose from those covered in Oct. 22rd class or another one if you find one that was not addressed but fits the criteria of a Supreme Court case that dealt with Aboriginal rights in Canada within the past 25 years). You can complete the assignment as a written paper (1.5 space/12 point font Times New Roman x 4 pages) or you can use points. In either method, provide a detailed response to each of the questions listed below. In addition to the paper that you will submit for grading, prepare a one page summary/cover page that you will present in class on November 12th and share with the other ANIS3006 students (handout, there are 18 students registered in the course). Frame your paper within the context of the following quotes: “Even when we win we lose.” (Chief Dean Sayers, Batchewana First Nation, commenting on Anishinabe experience in Canadian courts). “For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself [himself] and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives here. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices.” (Audre Lorde, feminist) In your paper, answer this broader question: How has the case you’ve selected served to advance Anishinabe rights in Canada? Describe what was gained and consider at what cost (“Even when we win, we lose.”) Address the following, and add anything that you find significant about the case, its process, its outcome and subsequent impact: • What was the basis of the court case? • What happened (e.g. Anishinabe people charged, by who, what charge)? • Who took the issue to court (who was the claimant, against who)? • What was the basis of the claim (be specific)? How was the issue framed/presented? • Who supported the court case (locally, regionally, nationally)? How did they support it? What was the impact of their support (e.g. political, financial, public awareness, protests, etc.)? • How long did it take from initiating the claim to decision (specific dates, chronology)? • What happened? What was the lower court’s decision? How did the case move through to the Supreme Court? What was the final Supreme Court decisions? • What did the Supreme Court’s decision mean in terms of Aboriginal rights in Canada? (What was gained, what was lost)? • Anything else of note relating to the case, its process or outcome. • Answer if and how the Supreme Court decision formed the basis for changes in Canadian government policies or practice concerning Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. In other words, what has the outcome of the Supreme Court decision been to date?

No expert has answered this question yet. You can browse … Read More...
1. Express in your own words the meaning of these terms a. Indicator b. Acid-base indicator c. Hydronium ion Acidic solution Basic/alkaline solution Salt d. Neutralization reaction Acid e. Base f. Acid-base reaction Strong acid g. Weak acid h. Strong base i. Weak base j. Molarity k. pH l. Neutral m. Buffer

1. Express in your own words the meaning of these terms a. Indicator b. Acid-base indicator c. Hydronium ion Acidic solution Basic/alkaline solution Salt d. Neutralization reaction Acid e. Base f. Acid-base reaction Strong acid g. Weak acid h. Strong base i. Weak base j. Molarity k. pH l. Neutral m. Buffer

Express in your own words the meaning of these terms: … Read More...
Explain the relationship between the physical environments and the types of cultures and societies that the various indigenous peoples developed — be sure to use specific examples. Why do you think some Native American societies formed large-scale societies, while most did not? What do the Native American stories in the History 10 Readings reveal about what they valued? (Be sure to refer to the documents by name in your work and explain how the story reveals what they valued. For example, you could say, “In the reading about the Creation of the World, the Zuni saw the importance of both men and women in the roles that Sky-father and Earth-mother play together in determining how their children will find their way in the world by . . . . ” And then use a relevant quote from the story to support your point. ) Unit 3: Unit 1.1: Native Americans – Unit 1 Threaded Discussion 1 You have now read and examined a variety of Native American cultures. Europeans referred to them as “savage” or “uncivilized.” But do cultural differences, shaped by the environments in which people found themselves, make a peoples savage or uncivilized? Unit 1 — Threaded Discussion 1

Explain the relationship between the physical environments and the types of cultures and societies that the various indigenous peoples developed — be sure to use specific examples. Why do you think some Native American societies formed large-scale societies, while most did not? What do the Native American stories in the History 10 Readings reveal about what they valued? (Be sure to refer to the documents by name in your work and explain how the story reveals what they valued. For example, you could say, “In the reading about the Creation of the World, the Zuni saw the importance of both men and women in the roles that Sky-father and Earth-mother play together in determining how their children will find their way in the world by . . . . ” And then use a relevant quote from the story to support your point. ) Unit 3: Unit 1.1: Native Americans – Unit 1 Threaded Discussion 1 You have now read and examined a variety of Native American cultures. Europeans referred to them as “savage” or “uncivilized.” But do cultural differences, shaped by the environments in which people found themselves, make a peoples savage or uncivilized? Unit 1 — Threaded Discussion 1

info@checkyourstudy.com Explain the relationship between the physical environments and the … Read More...
For this assignment, you will compose a letter designed to recruit students to join and support the agenda of one of three nonexistent student organizations that, were they to exist, would likely be very unpopular. The student organization for which you will be recruiting is determined by your last name: The first letter of your last name is… Your student organization assignment is… A – F The SETS Collective: SETS (Skip the Elevator, Take the Stairs) is dedicated to energy conservation on campus, particularly by eliminating elevator usage by pedestrians in any buildings on the UT-Austin campus. G – N O – Z Your recruiting letter must include eight (8) different persuasive strategies. Each strategy must be used in the service of encouraging students to join the organization and/or endorse its cause. In addition to your recruiting letter, you will also submit a commentary describing the different strategies you used in the recruiting letter. In this course, we utilize the TurnItIn tool. This service helps educators prevent plagiarism by detecting unoriginal content in student papers. In addition to acting as a plagiarism deterrent, it also has features designed to aid in educating students about plagiarism and importance of proper attribution of any borrowed content. For more information, please visit http://turnitin.com/. Below are a series of requirements for the paper assignment. Failure to satisfy these requirements will result in substantial point penalties. Also, failure to abide by the academic honesty policy described in the syllabus and maintained by the CMS department, the Moody College of Communication, and/or The University of Texas will result in a grade of F on the assignment and referral to the Dean of Students. Assignment Requirements • You must portray yourself as a recruiting officer (or Secretary of Recruitment) – not the President, VP, etc. – of the organization described in your letter. As a recruiting officer, you are not authorized to offer any rewards or bribes (gifts in the form of sports tickets, free meals, etc.) to people as an incentive to join the organization, nor are you allowed to make up fictional incentives (e.g., OBC students will enjoy an opportunity to participate in international conferences). Your letter should focus exclusively on the merits of joining the organization based on commitment to its cause. • Assume that organization has just been formed – i.e., do not portray it as having existed prior to the Spring of 2017. • You may also assume that there are currently only three members of the organization, the president, vice-president, and yourself (the Secretary of Recruitment). You CANNOT claim that there are “many members.” • You must use the following format for the recruiting letter AND the commentary: 12-point Times New Roman font, single-spaced (NOT double-spaced) on 8.5 X 11-inch white paper with 1-inch margins on all sides. • The recruiting letter must be no shorter than 2 nor longer than 3 pages; the commentary must be no longer than 2 pages. • Your recruiting letter must include only 8 (eight) DIFFERENT strategies discussed in the lectures and/or readings. You may use any principle/theory we have discussed EXCEPT for balance theory (which is too obvious) or deception (which isn’t persuasion per se). • Your commentary must identify the name OR what you did for of each strategy (e.g., Door In Face or Foot In The Door) used in your letter and describe the specific purpose(s) the strategy was used to achieve. At a minimum, your description of each strategy should consist of at least two complete sentences (16 sentences total). • Each strategy explanation in your commentary should be bulleted or numbered for easy identification • You may not lie under any circumstances. Lies include falsifications and/or distortions of the truth about the student organization (e.g., SURF is endorsed by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes). Also, you may not offer recruits bribes in any form (tickets, discounts, free food, cash, etc.) as an incentive for joining the organization. • Your completed assignment (recruiting letter + commentary) must be turned in on April 13th (a Thursday) at or before 9:30 a.m. Grading Rubric We will use the following rubric to evaluate and grade your letter + commentary. Assignment Component Possible Points Obtained Points Format, Spelling, Grammar, Coherence Are the letter and commentary written in the proper format? Do they consist of grammatical, coherent English sentences? Has the assignment been spell-checked? 4 Strategy 1 Example/Commentary Is the example an acceptable instance of the strategy? Is it different from the other strategies used? Is the strategy correctly identified and adequately explained in the commentary? 2 Strategy 2 Example/Commentary 2 Strategy 3 Example/Commentary 2 Strategy 4 Example/Commentary 2 Strategy 5 Example/Commentary 2 Strategy 6 Example/ Commentary 2 Strategy 7 Example/ Commentary 2 Strategy 8 Example/ Commentary 2 Lies/Deception/Bribes (-3 pts per instance) -3 (per instance) Total Score 20 Cannot use strategy of Balance Theory, Lie Write a persuasive essay and a commentary Commentary is about 8 strategies in letter • 8 bullets separate from the letter “foot-in-the-door” – “door-in-the-face” (rejection then retreat) o 1. Make a large (but reasonable) request to target  World you lend me $50? o 2. After request is rejected, make a smaller request  Well then, could you lend me $10? o Creating a “big” favor out of thin air! “low-balling” • An advantage is offered that induces a favorable purchase decision. Then, sometime after the decision has been made, but before the bargain is sealed, the original purchase buyer is deftly removed. 1.) Loss framing: Loss aversion 2.) Restriction: scarcity 3.) Positive self-feeling: Principle commitment 4.) Identification: Social Proof 5.) “Using Rhymes” is what you would write instead of Stroop effect: Fluency 6.) Virtual ownership: Endowment effect 7.) That’s not all: reciprocity 8.) Flattery: Likability 9.) Expertise strategy: Authority principle 10.) Inducing dissonance reduction: Norm of consistency 11.) Conformity concession: social proof 12.) Association similarity: Liking & Association principle Strategies – Use 8 (Cannot use Balance Theory or deception) Strategy Principle Sources/Notes Door in the Face Reciprocity 9/16 lecture Foot in the Door Consistency Norm 9/30 lecture That’s not all Reciprocity 9/16 lecture Flattery Likability Could someone give an example for Flattery?! I’m a little stuck… “Providing a statistic” Social Proof? why is this yellow? What principle is this? How did you use this as a strategy?? plz help AUTHORITY it depends how you use it ID-ing yourself as a student Likability <in cialdini chapter 5 they are talked about as 2 different things, so if you can argue it your way,Cialdini can support it what is the strategy for this? Perceptual Contrast What is this for? Low-Balling Might be considered lying. Soft-Sell Humor appeal did anyone use this?? Anyone??? What principle is this? Hard-sell ???????? Seek-and-Hide Fear Appeal ???? What principle does this fall under???? Pump and Dump social proof 10/9 lecture Bait-and-switch this kind of seems like deception, can we use it? Moral Appeal Commitment Rebecca’s Lecture 10/2 Voluntary instead of Mandatory Consistency Norm 9/30 lecture herd mentality social proof 10/14 lecture Loss framing Loss Aversion Endowment Effect this is a principle FYI Mere ownership Scarcity Dissonance Reduction Positive/negative self feelings Commitment to gain compliance Rebecca’s Lecture Principles Name STRATEGIES/Ideas Source/Notes Reciprocity That’s not all! Likability/Association Flattery, agreeing with said person, state similar social standings, “work with” them, show evidence of “good things” likeability/association ppt Consistency/Commitment Foot in the door, positive self-feelings, moral appeal, Social Proof/Conformity norm works when someone is uncertain about the right thing to do, and when the person they are watching is similar to them. Provide target with “evidence” that compliance is a common/frequent response among desired social group “we made other people happy, we’ll make you happy too” Priming the pump (tip jar example) Pump and dump (Scam, could be considered deception) Conformity and social proff ppt Authority Wearing a uniform, Titles, books, diplomas, awards, success, using a spokesperson, Scarcity/Supply and demand “Only a certain number of students allowed in” “only for college students” “Exclusive except to X” “Only a certain number of seats” Scarcity ppt Psychological Reactance Restricting access, censoring something, implying scarcity, Scarcity ppt Attractiveness Similarity Mentioning you are a student Perceptual Contrast Loss aversion gain or loss framing Scarcity ppt Balance Theory We aren’t allowed to use this Judgement Heuristic Price = product quality Use of long unfamilar words = intelligence fluency = trustworthinesss Fluency ppt Availability Heuristic Can you think of one example (out of ten) (for us) vs Can you think of then for the competitor - here’s our ten. Fluency ppt

For this assignment, you will compose a letter designed to recruit students to join and support the agenda of one of three nonexistent student organizations that, were they to exist, would likely be very unpopular. The student organization for which you will be recruiting is determined by your last name: The first letter of your last name is… Your student organization assignment is… A – F The SETS Collective: SETS (Skip the Elevator, Take the Stairs) is dedicated to energy conservation on campus, particularly by eliminating elevator usage by pedestrians in any buildings on the UT-Austin campus. G – N O – Z Your recruiting letter must include eight (8) different persuasive strategies. Each strategy must be used in the service of encouraging students to join the organization and/or endorse its cause. In addition to your recruiting letter, you will also submit a commentary describing the different strategies you used in the recruiting letter. In this course, we utilize the TurnItIn tool. This service helps educators prevent plagiarism by detecting unoriginal content in student papers. In addition to acting as a plagiarism deterrent, it also has features designed to aid in educating students about plagiarism and importance of proper attribution of any borrowed content. For more information, please visit http://turnitin.com/. Below are a series of requirements for the paper assignment. Failure to satisfy these requirements will result in substantial point penalties. Also, failure to abide by the academic honesty policy described in the syllabus and maintained by the CMS department, the Moody College of Communication, and/or The University of Texas will result in a grade of F on the assignment and referral to the Dean of Students. Assignment Requirements • You must portray yourself as a recruiting officer (or Secretary of Recruitment) – not the President, VP, etc. – of the organization described in your letter. As a recruiting officer, you are not authorized to offer any rewards or bribes (gifts in the form of sports tickets, free meals, etc.) to people as an incentive to join the organization, nor are you allowed to make up fictional incentives (e.g., OBC students will enjoy an opportunity to participate in international conferences). Your letter should focus exclusively on the merits of joining the organization based on commitment to its cause. • Assume that organization has just been formed – i.e., do not portray it as having existed prior to the Spring of 2017. • You may also assume that there are currently only three members of the organization, the president, vice-president, and yourself (the Secretary of Recruitment). You CANNOT claim that there are “many members.” • You must use the following format for the recruiting letter AND the commentary: 12-point Times New Roman font, single-spaced (NOT double-spaced) on 8.5 X 11-inch white paper with 1-inch margins on all sides. • The recruiting letter must be no shorter than 2 nor longer than 3 pages; the commentary must be no longer than 2 pages. • Your recruiting letter must include only 8 (eight) DIFFERENT strategies discussed in the lectures and/or readings. You may use any principle/theory we have discussed EXCEPT for balance theory (which is too obvious) or deception (which isn’t persuasion per se). • Your commentary must identify the name OR what you did for of each strategy (e.g., Door In Face or Foot In The Door) used in your letter and describe the specific purpose(s) the strategy was used to achieve. At a minimum, your description of each strategy should consist of at least two complete sentences (16 sentences total). • Each strategy explanation in your commentary should be bulleted or numbered for easy identification • You may not lie under any circumstances. Lies include falsifications and/or distortions of the truth about the student organization (e.g., SURF is endorsed by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes). Also, you may not offer recruits bribes in any form (tickets, discounts, free food, cash, etc.) as an incentive for joining the organization. • Your completed assignment (recruiting letter + commentary) must be turned in on April 13th (a Thursday) at or before 9:30 a.m. Grading Rubric We will use the following rubric to evaluate and grade your letter + commentary. Assignment Component Possible Points Obtained Points Format, Spelling, Grammar, Coherence Are the letter and commentary written in the proper format? Do they consist of grammatical, coherent English sentences? Has the assignment been spell-checked? 4 Strategy 1 Example/Commentary Is the example an acceptable instance of the strategy? Is it different from the other strategies used? Is the strategy correctly identified and adequately explained in the commentary? 2 Strategy 2 Example/Commentary 2 Strategy 3 Example/Commentary 2 Strategy 4 Example/Commentary 2 Strategy 5 Example/Commentary 2 Strategy 6 Example/ Commentary 2 Strategy 7 Example/ Commentary 2 Strategy 8 Example/ Commentary 2 Lies/Deception/Bribes (-3 pts per instance) -3 (per instance) Total Score 20 Cannot use strategy of Balance Theory, Lie Write a persuasive essay and a commentary Commentary is about 8 strategies in letter • 8 bullets separate from the letter “foot-in-the-door” – “door-in-the-face” (rejection then retreat) o 1. Make a large (but reasonable) request to target  World you lend me $50? o 2. After request is rejected, make a smaller request  Well then, could you lend me $10? o Creating a “big” favor out of thin air! “low-balling” • An advantage is offered that induces a favorable purchase decision. Then, sometime after the decision has been made, but before the bargain is sealed, the original purchase buyer is deftly removed. 1.) Loss framing: Loss aversion 2.) Restriction: scarcity 3.) Positive self-feeling: Principle commitment 4.) Identification: Social Proof 5.) “Using Rhymes” is what you would write instead of Stroop effect: Fluency 6.) Virtual ownership: Endowment effect 7.) That’s not all: reciprocity 8.) Flattery: Likability 9.) Expertise strategy: Authority principle 10.) Inducing dissonance reduction: Norm of consistency 11.) Conformity concession: social proof 12.) Association similarity: Liking & Association principle Strategies – Use 8 (Cannot use Balance Theory or deception) Strategy Principle Sources/Notes Door in the Face Reciprocity 9/16 lecture Foot in the Door Consistency Norm 9/30 lecture That’s not all Reciprocity 9/16 lecture Flattery Likability Could someone give an example for Flattery?! I’m a little stuck… “Providing a statistic” Social Proof? why is this yellow? What principle is this? How did you use this as a strategy?? plz help AUTHORITY it depends how you use it ID-ing yourself as a student Likability

checkyourstudy.com Whatsapp +919911743277
Which of the following equations is often used to show that an enzyme has formed a complex with its substrate? Select one: a. enzyme + product ⇒ substrate + enzyme ⇒ enzyme-substrate complex b. enzyme + substrate ⇒ product + enzyme ⇒ enzyme-substrate complex c. product + enzyme ⇒ enzyme-substrate complex ⇒ substrate + product d. substrate + enzyme ⇒ enzyme-substrate complex ⇒ enzyme + product The equation has a substrate and an enzyme meeting at the active site, forming an enzyme substrate complex and the forming an enzyme and product.

Which of the following equations is often used to show that an enzyme has formed a complex with its substrate? Select one: a. enzyme + product ⇒ substrate + enzyme ⇒ enzyme-substrate complex b. enzyme + substrate ⇒ product + enzyme ⇒ enzyme-substrate complex c. product + enzyme ⇒ enzyme-substrate complex ⇒ substrate + product d. substrate + enzyme ⇒ enzyme-substrate complex ⇒ enzyme + product The equation has a substrate and an enzyme meeting at the active site, forming an enzyme substrate complex and the forming an enzyme and product.

Info@checkyourstudy.com                                                                                                                                                                                       : substrate + enzyme ⇒ enzyme-substrate complex ⇒ enzyme … 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.