Blog

Topic A: The Gamer’s DilemmaQuestion 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 words)A historical strategy game called Empire: Total Conquest allows players to roleplay as various historical empires. One controversial mechanic allows players to engage in “population management” – they can forcibly relocate, enslave, or exterminate ethnic and religious minorities in conquered territories for strategic advantages (increased loyalty, economic benefits, easier governance). The game presents this in sanitized strategic terms (clicking buttons, seeing statistics) rather than graphic violence. The developers defend it as “historically accurate” and argue that it helps players understand how atrocities happen. Critics argue it gamifies genocide.Using Luck’s framework and at least TWO of the arguments we discussed (Arguments 1, 2, 3, or 5), analyze whether this game mechanic is morally problematic. Be specific about which principles apply and why.Question 2:(50 minutes, ~500-600 words)Assume Luck is correct that we cannot distinguish virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. You must now choose a position: either defend the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle (all are morally wrong), or defend the permissibility of virtual immoral actions (all are morally permissible).Develop your argument by:(a) Identifying the strongest objection to your position(b) Responding to that objection with specific reasoning(c) Explaining what your position implies for one specific game or game genre (such as Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty, The Last of Us, etc.)Topic B: Sexual Consent & EthicsA university is revising its sexual misconduct policy specifically for cases where both parties were voluntarily intoxicated. The disciplinary committee is debating between three approaches:Policy X: “No disciplinary action when both parties were voluntarily intoxicated, as both bear equal responsibility for their impaired judgment”Policy Y: “Investigate to determine which party was more impaired or more responsible, and hold only that party accountable”Policy Z: “Hold both parties responsible for failure to ensure valid consent, but impose reduced penalties compared to cases where one party was sober”Your Task:Part 1: Theoretical Positions (30 points)Explain which policy each theorist would prefer and why:a) Roiphe’s position: Which policy would she prefer? Use her concept of women as “autonomous adults responsible for the consequences of their use of alcohol.”b) Pineau’s position: Which policy would she prefer? Reference her “communicative sexuality” standard and the duty both parties have to ensure valid consent.c) Dixon’s position: Dixon agrees with Pineau morally but has concerns about legal enforcement. How might his position differ from Pineau’s when choosing between these policies?Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)Apply key concepts from the course to analyze these policies:a) Perverse incentive analysis: Explain why Policy X creates a “perverse incentive” that undermines Pineau’s goals. What behavior would this policy inadvertently encourage? Why is this the opposite of what Pineau wants?b) Enforcement challenges: Explain one practical problem with fairly enforcing Policy Y or Policy Z. Consider issues like evidence, determining relative responsibility, or the problem of preemptive accusations.c) Error types: Using Pineau’s false positive/false negative framework, identify what type of error each policy might produce. Which policy minimizes the most harmful type of error?Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)Defend your own view on which policy the university should adopt:a) State your position clearly: Which policy do you think best balances the competing concerns of fairness, victim protection, and practical enforceability?b) Explain what makes it compelling: Give at least two reasons why this policy is preferable to the alternatives. Use concepts from the course (false +/-, perverse incentives, “erring on the side of no,” autonomy concerns, enforcement feasibility, etc.).c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Identify the strongest objection to your chosen policy from one of the theorists who would disagree with you (Roiphe, Pineau, or Dixon). Explain this objection fairly, then respond to it. Your response should show why your position can address this concern or why the objection, though legitimate, doesn’t outweigh your policy’s advantages.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.

Topic A: The Gamer’s DilemmaQuestion 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 words)A game called Purification allows players to target and attack members of various minority groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Players choose their “ideology” and then hunt victims in urban environments. The attacks can range from vandalism and assault to murder. The game includes mechanics for posting manifestos online and recruiting followers. While the game uses fictional group names, the targets are transparently based on real minorities. The game has been banned in several countries but remains available through certain platforms. A small community defends it on free speech grounds, arguing it’s no different from games that allow you to kill anyone, and that singling it out for criticism violates Luck’s Argument 4 (since other games don’t restrict who you can kill).Using Luck’s framework and at least TWO of the arguments we discussed (Arguments 1, 2, 3, or 5), analyze whether this game is morally problematic. Be specific about which principles apply and why. (Note: You may also wish to discuss whether Argument 4 actually helps or hurts the defense of this game.)Question 2:(50 minutes, ~500-600 words)Assume Luck is correct that we cannot distinguish virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. You must now choose a position: either defend the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle (all are morally wrong), or defend the permissibility of virtual immoral actions (all are morally permissible).Develop your argument by:(a) Identifying the strongest objection to your position(b) Responding to that objection with specific reasoning(c) Explaining what your position implies for one specific game or game genre (such as Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty, The Last of Us, etc.)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 skepticismb) 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?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?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.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.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 Johnson’s Chemistry class was disrupted when a campus-wide illness caused 40% of students to miss the midterm exam. Rather than require make-up exams (which would create extra work and raise concerns about different exam versions), Professor Johnson offers all students—including those who took the original midterm—the option to complete a research project worth the same points as the midterm. Students can either keep their midterm grade or replace it with the project grade, whichever is higher. Some students who performed well on the midterm despite being sick argue this is unfair.Your task: Does this policy constitute extra credit? Is it justified given the circumstances? Apply course concepts about risk, fairness, and appropriate alternatives to extra credit in your analysis.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.

Topic A: The Gamer’s DilemmaQuestion 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 words)A game called Purification allows players to target and attack members of various minority groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Players choose their “ideology” and then hunt victims in urban environments. The attacks can range from vandalism and assault to murder. The game includes mechanics for posting manifestos online and recruiting followers. While the game uses fictional group names, the targets are transparently based on real minorities. The game has been banned in several countries but remains available through certain platforms. A small community defends it on free speech grounds, arguing it’s no different from games that allow you to kill anyone, and that singling it out for criticism violates Luck’s Argument 4 (since other games don’t restrict who you can kill).Using Luck’s framework and at least TWO of the arguments we discussed (Arguments 1, 2, 3, or 5), analyze whether this game is morally problematic. Be specific about which principles apply and why. (Note: You may also wish to discuss whether Argument 4 actually helps or hurts the defense of this game.)Question 2:(50 minutes, ~500-600 words)Assume Luck is correct that we cannot distinguish virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. You must now choose a position: either defend the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle (all are morally wrong), or defend the permissibility of virtual immoral actions (all are morally permissible).Develop your argument by:(a) Identifying the strongest objection to your position(b) Responding to that objection with specific reasoning(c) Explaining what your position implies for one specific game or game genre (such as Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty, The Last of Us, etc.)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.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 Williams teaches an upper-level Economics course. She learns that students from wealthier backgrounds in her class have been hiring private tutors who essentially teach the entire course content one-on-one, giving these students a significant advantage. To level the playing field, she considers offering extra credit opportunities that don’t require outside resources—things like attending free campus lectures, completing reflection assignments, or participating in study groups she organizes. Critics argue this doesn’t solve the fundamental problem and creates new fairness issues.Your task: Would this extra credit policy address the inequality problem or create new problems? Apply course concepts about systematic injustice, fairness in extra credit, and alternatives to extra credit in your analysis.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.

You just delivered a baby boy. His body is pink, but his hands and feet are blue. Vital signs are P110, R rapid and irregular. He has a weak cry when stimulated and resists attempts to straighten his legs. His APGAR score is:

What does the “G” in the APGAR assessment stand for?

What is a typical one minute APGAR score for a newborn?

What is the normal rate when performing PPV on a neonate?

A newly delivered infant has a pink trunk and blue hands and feet, pulse rate of 60 and does not respond to your attempts to stimulate her. She also appears to be limp and taking slow, gasping breaths. What is her APGAR score?

The nurse is caring for a neonate in the NICU who is on strict I & O.  Calculate the neonates 8 hour fluid balance starting at 0600 and ending at 1400 based on the following information: Intake 0730 consumes 15 milliliters of formula 0800 started on continuous NG feedings of Lipil 12 ml/hour Peripheral IV fluids at 3 ml/hour since 0500 0900 received IV antibiotic 2.5 ml followed with a 0.5 ml flush Output 3 wet diapers: 31 ml, 23 ml, 15 ml [BLANK-1]

Which sequence for stabilization in a delivery is the correct order?