Blog

The bone at the tip of the pointer is the ___[BLANK-1]___ bone.  patella.png

A good  Samaritan was administering CPR to a victim who almost drowned.  While administering chest compressions, he had his fists positioned to low and applied too much force.  What’s the bone his fists are on top of and which part/region of it broke off?

A melanocyte

Which of the following conditions results when articular cartilages in a joint degenerate to the point where the bony ends of the articulating bones touch? 

In which of the following bones can you find paranasal sinuses?

An abnormal lateral curvature of the vertebral column, most common in adolescent females is called

Consider the following argument and its map. Today, we are on the technological verge being able to resurrect extinct species by cloning their DNA. The excitement is palpable. Many individuals thrill at the prospect of so-called ‘de-extinction.’ But is de-extinction as prudent as it is sensational? Putting aside our dreams of taking selfies with a tyrannosaurus, should we resurrect these animals? Let’s think about it carefully. 2 The technology behind de-extinction is extraordinarily expensive so 3 bringing back extinct species would reduce the funding available for other conservation efforts. Obviously, 4 if bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea. Furthermore, 5 species introduced into a non-native environment can harm the ecosystem and 6 any resurrected species would be introduced into a non-native environment because 7 the species’ habitat will have substantially altered in the years since that species’ extinction. And finally, 8 resurrecting extinct species could encourage us to take extinction less seriously which means that 9 it might make us less inclined to protect currently endangered animals. Consequently, despite its attractions, 1 bringing back extinct species is a bad idea.”        MC 4.4a.pngWhich of the following is the missing premise next to premise 9? Don’t use an “if-then” statement

Consider the following argument and its map. Today, we are on the technological verge being able to resurrect extinct species by cloning their DNA. The excitement is palpable. Many individuals thrill at the prospect of so-called ‘de-extinction.’ But is de-extinction as prudent as it is sensational? Putting aside our dreams of taking selfies with a tyrannosaurus, should we resurrect these animals? Let’s think about it carefully. 2 The technology behind de-extinction is extraordinarily expensive so 3 bringing back extinct species would reduce the funding available for other conservation efforts. Obviously, 4 if bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea. Furthermore, 5 species introduced into a non-native environment can harm the ecosystem and 6 any resurrected species would be introduced into a non-native environment because 7 the species’ habitat will have substantially altered in the years since that species’ extinction. And finally, 8 resurrecting extinct species could encourage us to take extinction less seriously which means that 9 it might make us less inclined to protect currently endangered animals. Consequently, despite its attractions, 1 bringing back extinct species is a bad idea.”        MC 4.4a.pngPremise 4 says “If bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea.” Which of the following objections, if true, would show this claim to be false?

Consider the following argument and its map. Today, we are on the technological verge being able to resurrect extinct species by cloning their DNA. The excitement is palpable. Many individuals thrill at the prospect of so-called ‘de-extinction.’ But is de-extinction as prudent as it is sensational? Putting aside our dreams of taking selfies with a tyrannosaurus, should we resurrect these animals? Let’s think about it carefully. 2 The technology behind de-extinction is extraordinarily expensive so 3 bringing back extinct species would reduce the funding available for other conservation efforts. Obviously, 4 if bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea. Furthermore, 5 species introduced into a non-native environment can harm the ecosystem and 6 any resurrected species would be introduced into a non-native environment because 7 the species’ habitat will have substantially altered in the years since that species’ extinction. And finally, 8 resurrecting extinct species could encourage us to take extinction less seriously which means that 9 it might make us less inclined to protect currently endangered animals. Consequently, despite its attractions, 1 bringing back extinct species is a bad idea.”        MC 4.4a.pngInference B takes us from “3. Bringing back extinct species would reduce the funding available for other conservation efforts” and “4. If bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea” to “1. Bringing back extinct species is a bad idea.” What is the correct evaluation of inference B?

Consider the following argument and its map. Today, we are on the technological verge being able to resurrect extinct species by cloning their DNA. The excitement is palpable. Many individuals thrill at the prospect of so-called ‘de-extinction.’ But is de-extinction as prudent as it is sensational? Putting aside our dreams of taking selfies with a tyrannosaurus, should we resurrect these animals? Let’s think about it carefully. 2 The technology behind de-extinction is extraordinarily expensive so 3 bringing back extinct species would reduce the funding available for other conservation efforts. Obviously, 4 if bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea. Furthermore, 5 species introduced into a non-native environment can harm the ecosystem and 6 any resurrected species would be introduced into a non-native environment because 7 the species’ habitat will have substantially altered in the years since that species’ extinction. And finally, 8 resurrecting extinct species could encourage us to take extinction less seriously which means that 9 it might make us less inclined to protect currently endangered animals. Consequently, despite its attractions, 1 bringing back extinct species is a bad idea.”        MC 4.4a.pngConsider the following objection to this argument: “The passenger pigeon went extinct in 1914. How much could the bird’s habitat have really altered in just a little more than 100 years? Surely not very much.” What part of the argument is this objection criticizing?