Blog

Which of the following is a primary ligamentous constraint at the wrist?

13L – A nurse is planning care for a patient newly diagnosed with acute osteomyelitis of the femur. What is the primary goal of medical management for this condition?

Now that you have almost finished this course and you almost have at least one college course out of the way. Take some time to compare and contrast being a “young” high school student and being a “grown” college student. While you have more freedom now that you have moved beyond high school, most of you have discovered that you also have a great deal more responsibility. This is probably also true of many other areas of your life. In this essay, I want you to compare and contrast your life when you were still in high school to your life now. Also discuss what was going on in the world around you in high school and how the world you live in has changed. For example, when I was in high school, I had a beeper, but no cellphone because the only cell phones available then were those large bag phones. 🙂 Cell phones weren’t allowed and I couldn’t sneak a 5 pound bag phone into school in my pocket. Now you can fit them in your pocket. I look back on those days now and realize that some things are better now that the world has advanced, but some things are definitely worse also. Now examine how your own life and the world around you has changed since high school. Compare and Contrast these two times in your life cite specific examples of how your life and the world has changed since your high school days. Cite specific examples. This will require some research. I expect at least two quality outside sources. You will need to use both in text citations and a works cited page. As always, the entire paper must be in MLA format.

Question from Dr. Srinivas Bharadwaj  Select one from two questions (17 – 18)   21. (a) (5 pts):   What is peripheral tolerance?       (b) (9 pts):  Explain the mechanisms of peripheral tolerance. ———————————————————————- 22. (a) (5 pts): What is central tolerance?        (b) (9 pts): Explain positive and negative selection with respect to central tolerance.   

Topic B: Sexual Consent & EthicsA university is deciding how to prevent sexual misconduct related to alcohol. Three competing proposals emerge:Approach X: “Mandatory education emphasizing personal responsibility for alcohol consumption and decision-making. If you choose to drink, you’re responsible for your choices. No changes to consent policies.”Approach Y: “Mandatory education teaching students to ‘err on the side of no’ when uncertain about consent. Create clear guidelines: if someone shows ANY signs of impairment, don’t proceed. Violations result in disciplinary action for ‘failure to ensure valid consent.'”Approach Z: “Mandatory education on both personal responsibility AND duty to ensure valid consent. Create a disciplinary category for ‘reckless disregard for consent’ (less severe than assault) when someone proceeds despite uncertainty about their partner’s competence.”Your Task:Part 1: Position Alignment (30 points)a) Match theorists to approaches: Explain which approach BEST aligns with each theorist’s overall position and why:Roiphe’s view on personal responsibility and autonomyPineau’s “communicative sexuality” standard and legal enforcementDixon’s moral agreement with Pineau but legal skepticismAnswer:a)Roiphe’s view best aligns with Approach X. This is because it is a view that is stating that one should be responsible for their own actions which include drinking too much, putting yourself in harm’s way, etc. This puts the blame of the victim of the situation, because they chose to drink and they chose to say yes to or follow along with what the accused had asked of them, so therefore there should be no blame on the one who received what they perceived as an okay.Pineau’s view best aligns with Approach Y, because it is the approach that mainly focuses on communication and punishment for no valid consent. The “communicative sexuality” ideal is a way of saying that both parties should ensure valid consent before proceeding into any sexual acts or else they are at fault because they did not take the proper course of action to make sure that the other person felt safe and comfortable with the following actions. This view also calls for harsh disciplinary action since the person in question did not do their best to ensure that the action was a right one and therefore took part in an illegal action.Dixon’s view best aligns with Approach Z. This is because both Approach Z and Dixon’s view are a mix of the two previous views but with some twists. Them being that, in terms of the first argument, yes, the person who is claiming to be a victim in the situation is slightly at fault for putting themselves into that situation, but they also should not be completely at fault do the fact that they should not always have to worry about someone taking advantage of them in a public area. And for the second argument Dixon does agree that certain measures should be taken to ensure valid consent, but he does not agree with the disciplinary measures being harsh, he thinks that they should be something simple that teaches the people in question a lesson but does not necessarily punish them.b) Central Park Mugger analogy: Use Dixon’s Central Park Mugger analogy to explain what’s wrong with Approach X from Pineau and Dixon’s perspective. What does the analogy show about the relationship between foolish behavior and moral/legal responsibility?Answer: b)Approach X is one that says that the person who willingly put themselves in harm’s way are at fault. This can be proven wrong by the Central Park Mugger analogy, which is a story where a man goes out running at night with all of his most expensive jewelry on, because it is what he feels comfortable in, and he is in his own neighborhood that also happens to be a violent gang’s territory. While he is on the run he gets everything stolen off of him. Following along with the view of Approach X the man who was just trying to go for a run how he felt most comfortable is at fault, and the people who stole from him should receive no punishment at all. This is not right, because it may have been stupid for the man to go on a run in those circumstances, he should still be allowed to do so freely without being robbed of his things in his own neighborhood. And the robbers should not be able to go freely without charge just because the man did not make a smart decision. They still decided to rob someone which is a crime everywhere and should not be dismissed over something like that.Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)a) “Err on the side of false negative”: Explain what it means to “err on the side of false negative” in the context of these approaches. Why do Dixon and Pineau believe this is the morally correct approach when uncertain about consent? What makes false positives worse than false negatives in this context?Answer: This is meaning that when a guy is in a situation where he wants to partake in sexual actions with a girl but cannot figure out what she truly means then he should just back off, and the only time he should proceed is when he gets valid consent. Even though it may seem like the girl he is with doesn’t really mean no when she says it, and he perceives it as her just playing hard to get, missing the opportunity is better than going for it and being wrong. Waiting for valid consent and backing off when there isn’t any is the morally correct approach because it puts everyone out of harm’s way. No one can be accused of rape or sexual assault, and no one will feel like they were raped or assaulted. A false positive is worse than a false negative because a false positive will end up with someone feeling like they have been taken advantage of and a false negative just leaves someone feeling like they missed out, which is not a crime and is a feeling that will go away quickly unlike the feeling of being raped or sexually assaulted.b) Enforcement challenges: If Dixon were evaluating Approach Y versus Approach Z, which might he prefer despite agreeing with Pineau morally? Identify specific practical problems with enforcing Approach Y (the stricter standard) that might make Dixon favor Approach Z instead.Answer: Dixon would appeal more to Approach Z for many reasons that all mainly focus with the harsh or strict punishment that comes with Approach Y. He does not agree with punishing just the accused harshly, he thinks that all that will do will make everyone stop the partying and going out lifestyle because everyone would be too cautious of the people around them due to them not wanting to be falsely accused. Dixon also still agrees with the fact that people do still have some responsibility to not get themselves into these types of situations. So, while the fault should mainly be on the one who proceeded without fully valid consent blame can also be slightly on the one who did not make their feelings known at the time of the action.c) Both drunk complication: Explain how each approach would handle situations where both parties were impaired and both failed to “err on the side of no.” Which approach deals with this complication most fairly?Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)a) State your recommendation: Which approach would you recommend the university adopt? Be specific about whether you’d choose X, Y, Z, or some modified version.b) Defend your choice: Explain what makes your recommended approach compelling. Consider effectiveness at preventing harm, respecting student autonomy, and practical enforceability. Use course concepts like perverse incentives, error minimization, or the gap between moral and legal obligations.c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Identify the strongest objection to your chosen approach from one of the theorists (or from a perspective represented by one of the other approaches). Explain this objection thoroughly, then respond to it. Your response should acknowledge what’s legitimate about the objection while explaining why your approach is still preferable overall.Answer:Additional Question for Day 2: You argued that Dixon favors Approach Z partly because harsh punishment would “make everyone stop the partying and going out lifestyle because everyone would be too cautious.” But consider this: Pineau explicitly wants legal enforcement precisely to change behavior—to make people MORE cautious about proceeding without clear consent. From her perspective, isn’t your concern (that Y would make people overly cautious) actually a feature, not a bug? In 150-250 words, explain whether “making people too cautious about consent” is actually a problem. Does this reveal something you need to reconsider about Dixon’s position, or can you explain why there’s a meaningful difference between “appropriately cautious” and “too cautious”?

Topic C: Academic EthicsQuestion 1:Read the scenario below carefully. Apply course concepts about grading, extra credit, college functions, and fairness to analyze the situation. Your response should identify relevant ethical issues, explain which arguments from the course material apply, and recommend a course of action with justification. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Professor Rodriguez chairs the department reviewing grading policies. Data shows that average GPAs in the department have risen from 2.8 to 3.4 over the past decade, with increased use of extra credit being a major factor. Employers and graduate schools have started questioning the value of the department’s degrees. Some faculty argue that the higher grades reflect better teaching and more opportunities for learning; others argue this represents credential inflation that harms their best students. The department must decide whether to restrict or eliminate extra credit policies.Your task: Should the department restrict extra credit use? Apply course concepts about grade inflation, the sorting function of college, and how changes to grading policies affect different stakeholders (current students, past graduates, employers, society).Question 2:Instructions: Choose ONE of the following prompts. Take a clear position, construct your best argument for that position, anticipate the strongest objection someone could raise, and respond to that objection. Then consider whether there’s a remaining weakness in your position and address it. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Option A: The Priority QuestionPrompt: From society’s perspective (not just as a student or future employee), should colleges prioritize their sorting function (identifying and certifying capable students) or their educating function (developing student abilities)? Take a position and defend it. Then anticipate and respond to the strongest objection to your view.Option B: The Effort vs. Achievement DebatePrompt: Should grades primarily reflect student effort or student achievement? Take a position and construct an argument that goes beyond “both matter” to identify which should be prioritized when they conflict. Anticipate the strongest objection to your position and respond to it.Option C: The Fairness StandardPrompt: Consider this claim: “Extra credit is unfair to high-achieving students because it diminishes the value of their accomplishments—it’s a form of ‘theft of credit.'” Do you agree with this characterization? Take a position, defend it with argument, anticipate a strong objection, and respond.Option D: The Credential Inflation Trade-offPrompt: Some argue that being generous with grades (through extra credit, curving, etc.) helps current students but harms past graduates and future students by making degrees less valuable. Others argue this concern is overblown and that we should prioritize helping students currently in our classes. Which consideration should matter more to professors when setting grading policies? Take a position, defend it, anticipate an objection, and respond.Your AnswerQuestion 1: The department should restrict extra credit use because of three main arguments that go against equal opportunity, the Equity argument. As you know, typically the high A students are characterized as the students who go above and beyond to earn such a high grade. They dedicate their time and effort not only to complete their tasks but to make the task stand out. The students who receive B’s are also dedicated students but they might lack some knowledge skills, but that doesn’t stop them from completing their assignments to the best of their abilities. These students that I have listed are the students who are mainly harmed from extra credit use. If a student who receives C’s, D’s or even F’s complete the extra credit, their grade will be just as high as the “A and B” students who worked extremely hard for those grades. This argument is called the “grade inflation” argument. This situation weakens the sorting function system where students are sorted in specific ranks/grades of how well they understand the material in which they are being graded in. A scenario that will help better explain this argument is if a Lamar alumni student who received a masters degree with a 4.0+ GPA applied for a job and the hiring department was  extremely impressed with their credentials that they decide to award them an interview. The alumni arrived for the interview and left the hiring department distraught with their lack of knowledge skills and social skills; they couldn’t believe someone with those credentials could be so terrible so they immediately let them go and took note of the University they studied in. Then the next day another Lamar alumni student applies for that same job with the same exact credentials and the hiring department noticed the same university so they were a bit uneasy about allowing them an interview but in the end decided to give them an interview. The alumni arrives and leaves the same impression on the hiring department and the hiring department decides to never allow any Lamar alumni students any opportunity to work with them. This “grade inflation” mainly harmed three things. The alumni who don’t deserve the credentials, the alumni who do deserve the credentials, and the University’s name. The alumni who used extra credit to receive inflated grades are given false hope for a bright future. Company’s will not hire people who don’t seem fit for the job, specifically if you don’t fully understand the entirety of what you’re getting into, so the alumni who are not competent for these jobs will be affected if they have no stable source of income from a job. The alumni who received their master degrees and high GPA without the use of extra credit will find it extremely difficult to find a job who will accept Lamar University’s credibility since all students who attend Lamar will graduate with a high GPA. The University’s name will be known as the university who passes all students as long as they pay their tuition. This basically means Lamar students are paying for a degree and high grades instead of the knowledge that plays a main part in getting a job in the real world.Prompt: Consider this claim: “Extra credit is unfair to high-achieving students because it diminishes the value of their accomplishments—it’s a form of ‘theft of credit.'” Do you agree with this characterization? Take a position, defend it with argument, anticipate a strong objection, and respond.Prompt C: I believe in the characterization of extra credit being a form of theft. The equity argument is about all students receiving equal opportunity

Topic C: Academic EthicsQuestion 1:Read the scenario below carefully. Apply course concepts about grading, extra credit, college functions, and fairness to analyze the situation. Your response should identify relevant ethical issues, explain which arguments from the course material apply, and recommend a course of action with justification. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Professor Thompson has a strict no-extra-credit policy based on Pynes’ arguments. A student who has maintained a B+ average suffers a serious medical emergency three weeks before finals, missing crucial review sessions and performing poorly on the final exam, dropping to a C+ in the course. The student requests an extra credit opportunity to demonstrate mastery of the material after recovery. The professor must decide whether this situation justifies an exception to the no-extra-credit policy, and if so, whether this creates a slippery slope.Your task: Should Professor Thompson make an exception? If so, how can this be done without undermining the reasons for avoiding extra credit? Consider the alternatives to extra credit discussed in class and whether any would be more appropriate here.Question 2:Instructions: Choose ONE of the following prompts. Take a clear position, construct your best argument for that position, anticipate the strongest objection someone could raise, and respond to that objection. Then consider whether there’s a remaining weakness in your position and address it. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Option A: The Priority QuestionPrompt: From society’s perspective (not just as a student or future employee), should colleges prioritize their sorting function (identifying and certifying capable students) or their educating function (developing student abilities)? Take a position and defend it. Then anticipate and respond to the strongest objection to your view.Option B: The Effort vs. Achievement DebatePrompt: Should grades primarily reflect student effort or student achievement? Take a position and construct an argument that goes beyond “both matter” to identify which should be prioritized when they conflict. Anticipate the strongest objection to your position and respond to it.Option C: The Fairness StandardPrompt: Consider this claim: “Extra credit is unfair to high-achieving students because it diminishes the value of their accomplishments—it’s a form of ‘theft of credit.'” Do you agree with this characterization? Take a position, defend it with argument, anticipate a strong objection, and respond.Option D: The Credential Inflation Trade-offPrompt: Some argue that being generous with grades (through extra credit, curving, etc.) helps current students but harms past graduates and future students by making degrees less valuable. Others argue this concern is overblown and that we should prioritize helping students currently in our classes. Which consideration should matter more to professors when setting grading policies? Take a position, defend it, anticipate an objection, and respond.Your AnswerQuestion 1:Read the scenario below carefully. Apply course concepts about grading, extra credit, college functions, and fairness to analyze the situation. Your response should identify relevant ethical issues, explain which arguments from the course material apply, and recommend a course of action with justification. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Professor Thompson has a strict no-extra-credit policy based on Pynes’ arguments. A student who has maintained a B+ average suffers a serious medical emergency three weeks before finals, missing crucial review sessions and performing poorly on the final exam, dropping to a C+ in the course. The student requests an extra credit opportunity to demonstrate mastery of the material after recovery. The professor must decide whether this situation justifies an exception to the no-extra-credit policy, and if so, whether this creates a slippery slope.Your task: Should Professor Thompson make an exception? If so, how can this be done without undermining the reasons for avoiding extra credit? Consider the alternatives to extra credit discussed in class and whether any would be more appropriate here.Regarding the given situation and the current status of the student, whether they have made a full recovery or not,  I believe the professor should reconsider their no-extra-credit policy base on Pynes’ constructed argument, resulting in the extra credit opportunity being given to the student. Assuming this student is academically honest and has proven to be a hard-worker, I believe the student shouldn’t be punished for underperforming when certain opportunities were unfairly stricken from him due to a circumstance that is beyond anyone’s control. The scenario presented makes no mention  of the student attempting to manipulate the situation or seeking unfair advantage, which suggests their request stems from genuine hardship rather than entitlement. According to Pyne’s argument, extra credit often undermines fairness and academic integrity, for it rewards persistance over mastery, resulting in uneven opportunities to certain students being provided. Rather, in Pyne’s own argument, an emphasizes is made on how fairness in grading must consider context and uphold the ethical principals of justice. In this case, I argue that applying a rigid policy without consideration of any form of exception could violate those very own principles.Colleges, or other institutions that provide a higher education, serve multiple different purposes. To say any of these institutions serve one sole function, providing a letter grade, is not only inaccurate, but undermining the foundation of education. Promoting an atmosphere where a student can begin developing their own skills and increasing their knowledge is  one of the key functions of learning, and punishing the student when unforseen events, such as a medical emergency, disruptsa student’s ability to demonstrate learning under standard conditions. I believe  fairness does not always mean treating every student equally considering not every situation is fair.Option C: The Fairness StandardPrompt: Consider this claim: “Extra credit is unfair to high-achieving students because it diminishes the value of their accomplishments—it’s a form of ‘theft of credit.'” Do you agree with this characterization? Take a position, defend it with argument, anticipate a strong objection, and respond.I do not agree with this sentiment, and believe it devalues…

Topic B: Sexual Consent & EthicsA jurisdiction that has adopted Pineau’s “nonaggravated sexual assault” category is now debating what penalties should attach to it. Three positions emerge:Position 1: “Same penalties as standard rape, because non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex regardless of whether the perpetrator knew or should have known”Position 2: “Significantly reduced penalties (e.g., probation, mandatory education, community service) because the perpetrator may have genuinely believed they had consent”Position 3: “Tiered penalties based on level of recklessness: minimal penalty for ‘negligent’ cases (should have known better), moderate penalty for ‘reckless’ cases (ignored warning signs), approaching standard rape penalties for severe cases”Your Task:Part 1: Understanding Pineau’s Framework (30 points)a) Purpose of the category: Explain WHY Pineau created the nonaggravated sexual assault category in the first place. What problem was it meant to solve?b) Addressing Roiphe: How does creating this category allow Pineau to take Roiphe’s concerns about autonomy seriously while still protecting potential victims? What does Pineau concede to Roiphe, and what does she refuse to concede?c) Pineau’s preferred penalties: Based on Pineau’s overall goals (deterrence, “equalizing risk between the sexes,” taking consent seriously), which position would she most likely prefer? Why?Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)a) Perverse incentive analysis: Explain why Position 2 might create a “perverse incentive” problem. What behavior might significantly reduced penalties inadvertently encourage? How is this similar to the “punish neither” policy problem in both-drunk cases?b) Dixon’s enforcement concern: Dixon agrees that proceeding without valid consent is morally wrong. Explain what concerns he might have about Position 1 or Position 3 from a legal enforcement perspective. What “new injustices” might criminal penalties create even when moral wrongness exists?c) Error minimization: Using the false positive/false negative framework, explain what types of errors each position might produce. Consider both the error of punishing someone who genuinely believed they had consent AND the error of failing to deter/punish reckless behavior.Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)a) State your position: Which position on penalties do you find most defensible? Or would you recommend something different from all three?b) Defend your choice: Explain what makes your preferred approach compelling. Consider the goals of deterrence, fairness, proportionality, and avoiding perverse incentives. Use course concepts to support your reasoning.c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Identify the strongest objection to your position. This could come from:Roiphe (objecting to ANY criminal penalties for this category)Pineau (if you chose insufficient penalties)Dixon (if you chose penalties he’d consider difficult to enforce fairly)Explain the objection thoroughly and fairly, then respond to it. Show you understand why someone would object even as you defend your position.Your AnswerA jurisdiction that has adopted Pineau’s “nonaggravated sexual assault” category is now debating what penalties should attach to it. Three positions emerge:Position 1: “Same penalties as standard rape, because non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex regardless of whether the perpetrator knew or should have known”Position 2: “Significantly reduced penalties (e.g., probation, mandatory education, community service) because the perpetrator may have genuinely believed they had consent”Position 3: “Tiered penalties based on level of recklessness: minimal penalty for ‘negligent’ cases (should have known better), moderate penalty for ‘reckless’ cases (ignored warning signs), approaching standard rape penalties for severe cases”Your Task:Part 1: Understanding Pineau’s Framework (30 points)Pineau’s preferred penalties: Based on Pineau’s overall goals (deterrence, “equalizing risk between the sexes,” taking consent seriously), which position would she most likely prefer? Why?Part 1:a) Pineau created the nonaggravted sexual assault category to differentiate between what would be considered a true “rape” and an action that is still considered sexual assault and should have penalties, but is not quite the same as the former. In nonaggravated sexual assault, it may be due to negligence and/or taking a “yes” at face value without acknowledging the person’s competence level, which is believed to be wrong seeing as an intoxicated person cannot give valid consent. The problem Pineau is attempting to solve is that a person who seemingly takes advantage of a drunk person’s permission to have sex may face no penalties since it is not considered rape. Pineau acknowledges this and accepts that it is not the same, but it is still morally incorrect and should be seen as such, which led to the creation of a new category.b) Creating this category allows Pineau to take Roiphe’s concerns about autonomy seriously while still protecting potential victims by acknowledging that, yes, nonaggravated sexual assault is not the same as rape seeing as the person did give consent, whether the consent was valid or not. But in addition, Pineau also says that there is still a responsibility placed on the one who is not drunk to consider the other’s intoxication in regards to their consent, protecting the victim. Roiphe says that it was the woman’s choice to get drunk and she, as a grown woman, should have her “yes” taken seriously as not doing so would be insulting to her autonomy. As previously stated, Pineau agrees in part that it is not a true rape seeing as the victim did give consent at face-value, but is still wrong due to the person’s negligence of the victim’s consent validity, which is why she created the new category. She concedes to Roiphe that the person should not be punished the same as a rapist, but refuses to concede the complete dismissal of the person’s responsibility to be taken for having sex with someone unable to give valid consent due to their intoxication.c) Based on Pineau’s overall goals, the position she is most likely to prefer would be Position 2. This is because she is insistent that there must be some deterence/consequence for taking advantage of a drunk person, while still not considering it rape, and therefore not having the same penalties. She places nonaggravated sexual assault in its own category and would prefer to give it different consequences from the standard sexual assault. In an effort to deter this negligence from taking place, she would likely agree with implementing reduced penalties such as probation, mandatory education, or community service, as these are still punishments for their reckless behavior, but would not register them as a sex offender, place them in prison, and impacting the rest of their lives. This significantly reduces actions from standard rape seeing as the offender was being negligent, but may have genuinely believed they have consent, meaning they did not have the motive of harming the victim.Part B:Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)a) Position 2 may create a perverse incentive problem by encouraging the offender to also become intoxicated, or just say they were, in order to get out of any penalization. In the case of the offender claiming they were also drunk, law enforcement would be forced to conclude that the offender could not have properly analyzed the situation due to their own intoxication, and could also claim that they too are a victim since they could not give valid consent in the state they were in. Taking this into consideration, two conclusions could be drawn: punishing both or punishing neither. In both-drunk cases, the “punishing neither” policy problem allows the defendant to claim intoxication and receive no penalties. However, this would not truly be punishing neither because the victim would already be punished by feeling they had been sexually assaulted in the first place. In this case, justice would not be truly served on behalf of the victim.b) Dixon’s enforcement concern: Dixon agrees that proceeding without valid consent is morally wrong. Explain what concerns he might have about Position 1 or Position 3 from a legal enforcement perspective. What “new injustices” might criminal penalties create even when moral wrongness exists?Position 1: “Same penalties as standard rape, because non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex regardless of whether the perpetrator knew or should have known”Position 3: “Tiered penalties based on level of recklessness: minimal penalty for ‘negligent’ cases (should have known better), moderate penalty for ‘reckless’ cases (ignored warning signs), approaching standard rape penalties for severe cases”b)

______ consists of public departments and agencies that implement and manage government programs and services.

If a legislator were to vote according to their own conscience, then they would be considered a ______.