Evaluating analogical arguments 1 we should not blame the media for deteriorating moral standards. newspapers and tv are like weather reporters w the facts. we do not blame weather reports for telling us that the weather is bad. here is a standardization of this argument: (1) weather reporters report the facts, and we don't blame weather reports for tell us that the weather is bad. (2) media like newspaper and tv report the facts. therefore, (3) we shouldn't blame media like newspaper and tv for deteriorating moral standards. indicate which response best describes this argument. o a. it passes the true premises test because the premises are uncontroversially true non-testimonial empirica statements ob. it passes the true premises test because the premises are appropriate testimonial empirical statements. c. it passes the true premises test because the premises are uncontroversially true definitional statements. o o d. it passes the true premises test because the premises are appropriate statements by experts. e. it fails the true premises test. f. none of the above.

How did presidential reconstruction allow black codes to be passed

Read the paragraph below and answer the question that follows. "andy was asked to speak in a school assembly about a fundraising opportunity for a fellow student who had recently been diagnosed with leukemia. andy's stomach hurt and his hands were cold. "steady man," he thought. "you can do this. it's for tim. he needs our ." andy could picture the students wanting to get involved. it occurred to him now that he wasn't just giving a speech. he had something worthwhile to say. which strategies did andy use to reduce his apprehension? select all that apply." be prepared. use muscle relaxation techniques. get experience. think positively. focus on communicating to the audience.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.