Blog

Water’s facial bones labeling.jpg Using the image above identify A – F.

For standard facial bones, the parietoacanthial (Waters) view, what is the angle between the OML and the plane of the IR?

Match the CSVLOD artifact type to what it does / is

If you would like to, use this space to discuss things you found wrong or incorrect about the test, why you made certain choices, and any other feedback you wish considered about your responses to this test.  Make sure to indicate which question you are referring to by its number.

How does FEA show the alignment of assets and technology investments to business processes that deliver mission results?

Match the CSVLOD artifact type to what it does / is

Roman portraiture during the Republic could communicate a man’s virtues by emphasizing:

Express the following concentrations of solution in terms of molarity: 3.00L of solution contains 1.75 mole of solute

What is the molarity of a solution made by dissolving 36.29 g of NaCl in 2.30 L of solution? MW of NaCl = 58.44g/mol.  Show your work for credits

Write a cohesive commentary that addresses all of the following points: (9.1) Anscombe versus Truman. Anscombe says that choosing to kill the innocent as a means to one’s ends “is always murder.” Explain what makes her position absolutist, using her “boiling one baby” challenge. Why does she think Truman’s reasoning that the bombings shortened the war and saved lives is “not good enough”? Then explain what Rachels means by distinguishing “Truman was wrong” from “Truman violated an absolute rule.” (9.2) Hypothetical versus categorical. Explain Kant’s distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, using your own example rather than the chess or SAT examples from the reading. Why does Kant think moral obligations must be categorical? How does that commitment push him toward the view that moral rules have no exceptions? (9.3) The maxim problem. Rachels says Kant’s first argument against lying has a flaw in step (2). Explain the flaw, using a maxim of your own to show how describing an act’s maxim more narrowly can change whether it passes the universalizability test. Does this flaw defeat the Categorical Imperative itself, or only Kant’s conclusion about lying? Defend your answer. (9.3) Responsibility for consequences. Explain Kant’s claim that a person who lies “must answer for the consequences” while a person who tells the truth does not. Summarize Rachels’s two objections. Then describe a new scenario, not from the reading, in which telling the truth might lead to harm, and show how Kant and Rachels would each analyze it. (9.4–9.5) Evaluation. Rachels argues that the Katrina dilemma shows that two rules cannot both be absolute, but that one still might be. Explain why he calls this argument “impressive but limited.” Then evaluate his proposal that we may break a rule only for a reason we would be willing for anyone else to accept in the same circumstances. Does this test permit too much, since people can rationalize almost anything as a reason? Use a specific example in your answer. Ch 9 Absolute Moral Rules Kant Rachels.pdf