Schmitt is an amateur gardener. He one day comes across a strange new blossom in his garden. He takes it next door to his neighbor, a botanist, to analyze. The botanist returns with the news that his flower is a one-in-a- billion mutation, with properties such that if its nectar were analyzed and synthesized, we would have the cure for heart disease.

Inferences to the best explanation are inductive inferences. State what an inference to the best explanation is.State why an inference to the best explanation is an inductive inference.

Schmitt is an amateur gardener. He one day comes across a strange new blossom in his garden. He takes it next door to his neighbor, a botanist, to analyze. The botanist returns with the news that his flower is a one-in-a- billion mutation, with properties such that if its nectar were analyzed and synthesized, we would have the cure for heart disease. When word gets out, pharmaceutical company representatives line Schmitt's driveway, offering him exorbitant sums to buy his blossom in order to produce such a cure. But Schmitt is so taken by the beauty of his flower he cannot bring himself to part with it. It's my plant, he reminds everyone, produced on my land with my efforts. I should get to keep it if I want. Is Schmitt correct here? Or should society have the right to take the blossom from Schmitt and so cure heart disease? Feel free to express your opinion on the question posed. As long as you take a stand on the issue -- and give me four or five credible sentences explaining why you take the stand you do -- you'll receive credit.

Section II: Inductive Reasoning (5 pts) 1. UC Berkeley put out a presidential poll the other day predicting that Biden will beat Trump in California by a margin of 61% to 37%. In making these predictions, these polls, no doubt, rely on enumerative inductive reasoning. Explain fully what this means. What does it mean to say that these polls rely on enumerative inductive reasoning? How do we know they are relying on inductive reasoning? (2.5 pts) 2. Provide an example of an argument by analogy. Then, explain fully why arguments by an analogy are inductive arguments. (2.5 pts)

Materialism is the perspective, in metaphysics, that reality is knowable through experience. In other words, the physical world, which presents itself to us through the 5 senses, is real. Another way to express this is to say that what is physical is real. Here we will be looking at Aristotle, who found Plato's ideas of "Form" as the highest reality somewhat lacking. That is, he thought that there is no way an intangible idea like Form can exist apart from the physical objects in of which they are said to be the "real" level of being. So, in his work, we see the idea that "substance" is the basis of reality. That idea is spelled out in the Categories as well as the Metaphysics. 1. Early into Aristotle's Categories, he discusses the role of homonyms.What's the significance of homonyms? What do they point out about thedifference between essences and names? 2. In line 1b of the Categories, Aristotle distinguishes between things said ofa subject and things in a subject. What is this distinction getting at? 3. What reasons does Aristotle give for his claim that all humans naturallydesire to know? Do you agree with Aristotle's reasons and conclusions abouthuman beings? 4. We typically thing of cause and effect as a singular concept, but Aristotleclaims that there are four distinct causes for things. What are these causes?How does Aristotle's understanding of cause and effect differ from our own?

Section I: Venn diagrams (3 pts each) [For each argument, you will be provide a Venn diagram of that argument.The diagram will either demonstrate that the argument is valid or it will demonstrate that the argument is invalid. If it demonstrates that the argument is valid, explain how it does that. If it demonstrates that the argument in invalid, explain how it does that]. Argument #1: All horses are mammals, and no mammals are lizards. Therefore, no lizards are horses. Argument #2: No elm trees are cacti. Some tall plants are elm trees. So some tall plants are not cacti. All McDonalds burgers are made with pure beef patties. But, some McDonalds burgers are not 100% beef. So, some pure beef patties are not 100% beef. Argument #4: Some dogs do not bark. All things that bark love cats. Thus, some dogs loves cats.. Argument #5: All professional baseball players are millionaires. Some millionaires are billionaires. Some professional baseball players are billionaires. Argument # 3:

Glaucon uses the story of the Ring of Gyges to elaborate on this common understanding of justice. What's the story? What's the main point of the story? What does it say about human nature?

4.For each of the following three examples, include appropriate information where there are gaps. Do not write more than one sentence for each gap you fill in. O = your clothes have been in the dryer for an hour, but they're still wet T = E = b) O=|| T = some people allergic penicillin, but don't find out until later in life are to E = c) O = T = E = the waiter was fired from their job

8. Pfizer, one of the makers of the vaccine against Covid-19, concluded that their vaccine was over 94% effective. Undoubtedly, the scientists at Pfizer used inductive reasoning to draw their conclusion. Explain in your own words how we now the scientists for Pfizer us ed inductive reasoning. Describe the inductive reasoning that was involved in concluding that the vaccine in over 94% effect.

Assuming "Some Spartans are not Greeks" is true, what can be inferredabout the truth or falsity of the following? True, false, or undetermined? a. All Spartans are Greeks. b.. No Spartans are Greeks. c. Some Spartans are Greeks.

1. Assuming “All Spartans are Greeks" is true, what can be inferred about the truth or falsity of the following? Is the statement true, false, orundetermined? a. No Spartans are Greeks. h. Some Spartans are Greeks. i, Some Spartans are not Greeks.