Logic: American Association of State Colleges and Universities and Subsequent Rights Restrictions

Sequenced. Precise. Elegant. Clear. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th Edition How to Make an Origami Crane Make your own origami crane using these instructions and the perforated sheet of paper included in your book. 1. Start with a square piece of paper, colored side up. Fold in half and open. Then fold in half the other way. 2. Turn the paper over to the white side. Fold the paper in half, crease well and open, and then fold again in the other direction. 3. Using the creases you have made, bring the top 3 corners of the model down to the bottom corner.Flatten model. The iconic red crane on the cover of this new edition of Hurley’s, A Concise Introduction to Logic symbolizes the qualities that make it the most successful logic text on the market. We have chosen origami to symbolize this text’s careful sequencing, precision, elegance, and clarity. About the Cover 4. Fold top triangular flaps into the center and unfold. 5. Fold top of model downwards, crease well and unfold. 6. Open the uppermost flap of the model, bringing it upwards and pressing the sides of the model inwards at the same time. Flatten down, creasing well.Couple an icon steeped in tradition with a clean, modern design, and you will quickly get a sense of the qualities that make this new edition of Hurley the best yet. Along with instructions, each new text includes a sheet of red paper so that you can bring the cover to life. This exercise serves as a metaphor for the process of learning logic. It is challenging, requires practice, but can be fun. Ideas for other ways to create your own origami can be found at www. origami-resource-center. com. 7. Turn model over and repeat Steps 4-6 on the other side. . Fold top flaps into the center. 9. Repeat on other side. 10. Fold both ‘legs’ of 11. Inside Reverse Fold the â€Å"legs† model up, crease along the creases very well, then you just made. unfold. Finished Crane. 12. Inside Reverse Fold one si de to make a head, then fold down the wings. Source: www. origami-fun. com Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. A C O N C I S E I N T R O D U C T I O N TO Logic Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience.Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. A C O N C I S E I N T R O D U C T I O N TO Logic ELEVENTH EDITION PATRICK J. HURLEY University of San Diego Australia †¢ Brazil †¢ Japan †¢ Korea †¢ Mexico †¢ Singapore †¢ Spain †¢ United Kingdom †¢ United States Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience.The publisher reserves the right to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www. cengage. com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest. Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party co ntent may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. A Concise Introduction to Logic, Eleventh Edition Patrick J. Hurley Publisher: Clark Baxter Senior Sponsoring Editor: Joann Kozyrev Development Editor: Florence Kilgo Assistant Editor: Nathan Gamache Editorial Assistant: Michaela Henry Media Editor: Diane Akerman Marketing Manager: Mark T.Haynes Marketing Coordinator: Josh Hendrick Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio Content Project Manager: Alison Eigel Zade Senior Art Director: Jennifer Wahi Print Buyer: Paula Vang Production Service: Elm Street Publishing Services Internal designer: Yvo Riezebos Cover designer: Jeff Bane of CMB Design Partners Cover image: Courtesy of Getty Images: Red origami crane on white table (image numbe r 85592979) Compositor: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.  © 2012, 2008, 2006 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706 For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www. cengage. com/permissions. Further permissions questions can be emailed to [email  protected] com. Library of Congress Control Number: 2010924757 Student Edition: ISBN-13: 978 -0-8400-3417-5 ISBN-10: 0-8400-3417-2 Wadsworth 20 Channel Center Street Boston, MA 02210 USA Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with o? e locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local o? ce at: international. cengage. com/region Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd. For your course and learning solutions, visit www. cengage. com. Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www. cengagebrain. com. Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. To: All of the instructors, past and present, who have taught logic from this book. It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. –W. K. Clifford Nothing can be more important than the art of formal reasoning according to true logic. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Brief Contents Preface xiii PART I  Ã‚  INFORMAL LOGIC 1 2 3 Basic Concepts 1 Lang uage: Meaning and De? ition 78 Informal Fallacies 119 PART II  Ã‚  FORMAL LOGIC 4 5 6 7 8 Categorical Propositions 197 Categorical Syllogisms 259 Propositional Logic 310 Natural Deduction in Propositional Logic 380 Predicate Logic 442 PART III  Ã‚  INDUCTIVE LOGIC 9 10 11 12 13 14 Analogy and Legal and Moral Reasoning 509 Causality and Mill’s Methods 529 Probability 554 Statistical Reasoning 571 Hypothetical/Scienti? c Reasoning 593 Science and Superstition 615 Appendix: Logic and Graduate-Level Admissions Tests 644 Answers to Selected Exercises 655 Glossary/Index 697 vi Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Contents Preface xiii PART I? INFORMAL LOGIC 1 Basic Concepts EXERCISE 1. 1 7 1 1 14 33 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 1. 2 Recognizing Arguments EXERCISE 1. 2 25 1. 3 Deduction and Induction EXERCISE 1. 40 1. 4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency 44 EXERCISE 1. 4 53 1. 5 Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity EXERCISE 1. 5 63 57 1. 6 Extended Arguments EXERCISE 1. 6 70 64 2 Language: Meaning and De? nition 2. 1 Varieties of Meaning EXERCISE 2. 1 83 78 78 88 2. 2 The Intension and Extension of Terms EXERCISE 2. 2 92 2. 3 De? nitions and Their Purposes EXERCISE 2. 3 99 93 2. 4 De? nitional Techniques EXERCISE 2. 4 108 102 111 2. 5 Criteria for Lexical De? nitions EXERCISE 2. 5 115 vii Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial revi ew has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 3 Informal Fallacies 3. 1 Fallacies in General EXERCISE 3. 1 121 119 122 138 119 3. 2 Fallacies of Relevance EXERCISE 3. 2 133 3. 3 Fallacies of Weak Induction EXERCISE 3. 3 149 3. 4 Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy 156 EXERCISE 3. 4 170 . 5 Fallacies in Ordinary Language EXERCISE 3. 5 185 178 PART II? FORMAL LOGIC 4 Categorical Propositions 197 4. 1 The Components of Categorical Propositions 197 EXERCISE 4. 1 200 4. 2 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution EXERCISE 4. 2 204 200 4. 3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square of Opposition 205 EXERCISE 4. 3 216 4. 4 Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition EXERCISE 4. 4 225 217 4. 5 The Traditional Square of Opposition EXERCISE 4. 5 234 227 4. 6 Venn Diagrams and the Traditional Standpoint 239 EXERCISE 4. 6 245 4. 7 Translating Ordinary Language Statements into Categorical Form 246 EXERCISE 4. 254 viii Contents Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 5 Categorical Syllogisms 259 5. 1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure 259 EXERCISE 5. 1 264 5. 2 Venn Diagrams EXERCISE 5. 277 266 280 288 292 5. 3 Rules and Fallacies EXERCISE 5. 3 286 5. 4 Reducing the Number of Terms EXERCISE 5. 4 291 5. 5 Ordinary Language Arguments EXERCISE 5. 5 294 5. 6 Enthymemes 295 EXERCISE 5. 6 297 5. 7 Sorites 301 EXERCISE 5. 7 304 6 Propositional Logic EXERCISE 6. 1 319 310 6. 1 Symbols and Translation 310 6. 2 Truth Functions EXERCISE 6. 2 332 323 6. 3 Truth Tables for Propositions 335 EXERCISE 6. 3 341 6. 4 Truth Tables for Arguments EXERCISE 6. 4 347 344 6. 5 Indirect Truth Tables 350 EXERCISE 6. 5 358 6. 6 Argument Forms and Fallacies EXERCISE 6. 6 371 360 Contents ixCopyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 7 Natural Deduction in Propositional Logic 380 7. 1 Rules of Implication I 380 EXERCISE 7. 1 386 7. 2 Rules of Implication II 391 EXERCISE 7. 396 7. 3 Rules of Replacement I 401 EXERCISE 7. 3 407 7. 4 Rules of Replacement II EXERCISE 7. 4 419 414 7. 5 Conditional Proof EXERCISE 7. 5 430 427 7. 6 Indirect Proof EXERCISE 7. 6 436 432 438 7. 7 Proving Logical Truths EXERCISE 7. 7 440 8 Predicate Logic 442 8. 1 Symbols and Translation 442 EXERCISE 8. 1 449 8. 2 Using the Rules of Inference EXERCISE 8. 2 460 451 8. 3 Change of Quanti? er Rule EXERCISE 8. 3 467 464 468 8. 4 Conditional and Indirect Proof EXERCISE 8. 4 472 8. 5 Proving Invalidity EXERCISE 8. 5 479 474 481 8. 6 Relational Predicates and Overlapping Quanti? ers EXERCISE 8. 6 489 . 7 Identity 492 EXERCISE 8. 7 501 x Contents Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions r equire it. Part III INDUCTIVE LOGIC 9 Analogy and Legal and Moral Reasoning 509 9. 1 Analogical Reasoning 9. Legal Reasoning 9. 3 Moral Reasoning EXERCISE 9 520 509 512 516 10 Causality and Mill’s Methods 10. 2 Mill’s Five Methods 531 10. 3 Mill’s Methods and Science EXERCISE 10 546 529 529 10. 1 â€Å"Cause† and Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 540 11 Probability 554 11. 1 Theories of Probability 11. 2 The Probability Calculus EXERCISE 11 567 554 557 12 Statistical Reasoning 571 12. 1 Evaluating Statistics 571 12. 2 Samples 572 576 12. 3 The Meaning of â€Å"Average† 12. 4 Dispersion 578 12. 5 Graphs and Pictograms 12. 6 Percentages 586 EXERCISE 12 588 583 13 Hypothetical/Scienti? c Reasoning 593 13. The Hypothetical Method 593 13. 2 Hypothetical Reasoning: Four Examples from Science 596 Contents xi Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, som e third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 13. 3 The Proof of Hypotheses EXERCISE 13 607 02 13. 4 The Tentative Acceptance of Hypotheses 604 14 Science and Superstition 14. 2 Evidentiary Support 14. 3 Objectivity 14. 4 Integrity EXERCISE 14 615 615 14. 1 Distinguishing Between Science and Superstition 616 621 625 630 631 14. 5 Concluding Remarks Appendix: Logic and Graduate-Level Admissions Tests 644 Answers to Selected Exercises Glossary/Index 697 655 xii Contents Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that an y suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Preface The most immediate benefit derived from the study of logic is the skill needed to construct sound arguments of one’s own and to evaluate the arguments of others. In accomplishing this goal, logic instills a sensitivity for the formal component in language, a thorough command of which is indispensable to clear, e? ective, and meaningful communication.On a broader scale, by focusing attention on the requirement for reasons or evidence to support our views, logic provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that threaten the foundations of our democratic society. Finally, through its attention to inconsistency as a fatal ? aw in any theory or point of view, logic proves a useful device in disclosing ill-conceived policies in the politic al sphere and, ultimately, in distinguishing the rational from the irrational, the sane from the insane. This book is written with the aim of securing these bene? s. Every Book Has a Story When I ? rst began teaching introductory logic many years ago, I selected a textbook that was widely used and highly regarded. Yet, my students often had a hard time understanding it. The book tended to be overly wordy and the main points were often lost amid a welter of detail. Also, I found that much of the book’s content was only peripherally related to the central concepts of logic. Using this book provided the happy and unanticipated result that my students always came to class so they could hear me explain the textbook.But after I tired of doing this, I decided to write a textbook of my own that would address the de? ciencies of the one I had been using. Speci? cally, my goal was to write a book in which the main points were always presented up front so students could not possibly mis s them, the prose was clear and uncomplicated, and excess verbiage and peripheral subject matter was avoided. To accomplish these and other related goals, I incorporated the following pedagogical devices: †¢ Relevant and up-to-date examples were used extensively throughout the book. †¢ Key terms were introduced in bold face type and de? ed in the glossary/index. †¢ Central concepts were illustrated in graphic boxes. †¢ Numerous exercises—today there are over 2,600—were included to perfect student skills. †¢ Many exercises were drawn from real-life sources such as textbooks, newspapers, and magazines. †¢ Typically every third exercise was answered in the back of the book so students could check their work. xiii Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial re view has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. †¢ Chapters were organized so that earlier sections provided the foundation for later ones. Later sections could be skipped by instructors opting to do so. †¢ Important rules and tables were printed on the inside covers for ready access. In its ? rst edition, the book was so well received that plans were quickly begun for a second edition.With the completion of that and later editions, the book grew to incorporate many new features: †¢ Venn diagrams for syllogisms were presented in a novel and more e? ective way using color to identify the relevant areas. †¢ Dialogue exercises were included to depict the commission of fallacies in real life. †¢ Predicate logic was extended to include relational predicates and identity. †¢ The Emin ent Logicians feature was introduced to enhance the human element: it presented the lives of historically prominent logicians. †¢ â€Å"Truth Trees† and â€Å"Critical Thinking and Writing† were written as supplements. Learning Logic, a multimedia program that includes an additional 2,000 exercises and that practically teaches the course by itself, was included in the package. †¢ A series of videos dealing with topics that students ? nd di? cult, including the concept of validity, indirect truth tables, and natural deduction, were o? ered with the last edition. I am convinced that with each successive edition the book has become a more e? ective teaching tool. I am also convinced that the current, eleventh edition, is the best and most accurate one to date. New To This Edition †¢ Five new biographical vignettes of prominent logicians are introduced.The new logicians include Ruth Barcan Marcus, Alice Ambrose, Ada Byron (Countess of Lovelace), Willard Van Orman Quine, and Saul Kripke. †¢ Six new dialogue exercises are introduced to help a? rm the relevance of formal logic to real-life. They can be found in Sections 5. 6, 6. 4, 6. 6, 7. 3, 7. 4, and 8. 2. †¢ The end-of-chapter summaries now appear in bullet format to make them more useful for student review. †¢ Many new and improved exercises and examples appear throughout the book. †¢ In Section 1. 4, the link between inductive reasoning and the principle of the uniformity of nature is explained.Cogent inductive arguments are those that accord with this principle, while weak ones violate it. Such violations are always accompanied by an element of surprise. xiv Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially aff ect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. The connection between the Boolean Standpoint and the Aristotelian standpoint is explained more completely. †¢ The existential fallacy as it occurs in immediate inferences is explained in greater detail. All inferences that commit this fallacy have a universal premise and a particular conclusion. The meaning of â€Å"universal† and â€Å"particular† are extended to cover statements that are given as false. †¢ A new exercise set is introduced in Section 4. 5 that involves testing immediate inferences for soundness. †¢ An improved de? nition of the â€Å"main operator† of a compound statement is given. A new subsection is introduced in Section 6. 5 giving preliminary instruction on how to work backward from the truth values of the simple propositions to the truth values of the operators. A ne w exercise set provides practice with this technique. †¢ Section 7. 1 has been rewritten, emphasizing the strategy of trying to â€Å"? nd† the conclusion in the premises. †¢ Margin of error in Chapter 12 is now explained in terms of level of expectation. A more informative table illustrates this change. A complete list of all improvements is given at the beginning of the Instructor’s Manual.Note to the Student Imagine that you are interviewing for a job. The person across the desk asks about your strengths, and you reply that you are energetic, enthusiastic, and willing to work long hours. Also, you are creative and innovative, and you have good leadership skills. Then the interviewer asks about your weaknesses. You hadn’t anticipated this question, but after a moment’s thought you reply that your reasoning skills have never been very good. The interviewer quickly responds that this weakness could create big problems. â€Å"Why is that? † you ask. Because reasoning skills are essential to good judgment. And without good judgment your creativity will lead to projects that make no sense. Your leadership skills will direct our other employees in circles. Your enthusiasm will undermine everything we have accomplished up until now. And your working long hours will make things even worse. † â€Å"But don’t you think there is some position in your company that is right for me? † you ask. The interviewer thinks for a moment and then replies, â€Å"We have a competitor on the other side of town. I hear they are hiring right now. Why don’t you apply with them? †The point of this little dialogue is that good reasoning skills are essential to doing anything right. The business person uses reasoning skills in writing a report or preparing a presentation; the scientist uses them in designing an experiment or clinical trial, the department manager uses them in maximizing worker e? ciency, the law yer uses them in composing an argument to a judge or jury. And that’s where logic comes in. The chief purpose of logic is to develop good reasoning skills. In fact, logic is so important that when the liberal arts program of studies was formulated ? fteen hundred years Preface v Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. ago, logic was selected as one of the original seven liberal arts. Logic remains to this day a central component of a college or university education.From a more pragmatic angle, logic is important to earning a good score on any of the several tests required for admission to graduate professional schools—the LSAT, GMAT, MCAT, and so on. Obviously, the designers of these tests recognize that the ability to reason logically is a prerequisite to success in these ? elds. The appendix in the back of the book contains sample questions and cues on answering them. Also, logic is a useful tool in relieving what has come to be called math anxiety. For whatever reason, countless students today are terri? ed of any form of reasoning that involves abstract symbols.If you happen to be one of these students, you should ? nd it relatively easy to master the use of logical symbols, and your newly found comfort with these symbols will carry over into the other, more di? cult ? elds. To improve your performance in logic, I strongly urge you to take full advantage of a multimedia program called Learning Logic. This is an interactive tutorial that teaches the essentials of this textbook in a very user-friendly way. However, your computer mu st be equipped with loudspeakers or headphones, because the audio component is essential.Learning Logic is available both on CD and online at the Logic CourseMate site. If the CD version or a passcode for the website did not come with your textbook, it can be purchased separately through your campus bookstore if your instructor has ordered it. You can also order it directly at www. cengagebrain. com. In addition to Learning Logic, an eBook and other quizzes and self-study material are available on the Logic CourseMate site. Also available online through the Logic CourseMate site are brief video lectures on key topics. The videos include pointers on how to work the pertinent exercises in the textbook.They cover topics such as the concept of validity, conversion, obversion, and contraposition, indirect truth tables, and natural deduction. If, as you work through the content of this book, you encounter a subject that you have trouble understanding, one of these videos may solve the pro blem. Additionally, a set of audio summaries for each chapter in the book is available. These are designed so that you can download them onto your iPod, mp3 player, or computer and listen to them before taking a test. Because pro? ciency in logic involves developing a kill, it helps to work through the practice problems in Learning Logic and the exercises in the textbook more than once. This will help you see that good reasoning (and bad reasoning, too) follows certain patterns whose identi? cation is crucial to success in logic. As you progress, I think you will ? nd that learning logic can be lots of fun, and working with the online resources should enhance your overall learning experience. Note to the Instructor With this eleventh edition, Learning Logic is available both on CD and online. The CD comes free if  ordered with a new book, or it can be ordered separately at www. engagebrain. com. Online, Learning Logic it is available through the Logic CourseMate site, a password p rotected website (www. cengage. com/sso). This website o? ers the bene? t of being able to check a student’s â€Å"time on task,† that is, how much time the student has spent using a particular supplement. â€Å"Critical Thinking and Writing† and â€Å"Truthtrees† are available free on the website, and they can also be selected as modules in a custom version of the textbook. The videos, which cover topics students often have trouble with, are also available on Logic CourseMate.This edition also features Aplia, one of the Cengage Learning CourseMaster digital solutions. Aplia established a name for itself in the ? eld of economics, where it o? ers interactive online homework xvi Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed cont ent does not materially affect the overall learning experience.Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. assignments with continuous feedback to students. Providing automatic grading, Aplia increases student effort and keeps students accountable for course material while adding no additional paperwork to the instructor’s workload, leaving instructors with more time to prepare lectures and work with students. As Aplia expands its o? erings to include additional subjects, it has won widespread acclaim from thousands of instructors across numerous disciplines. Now, Aplia o? ers its signature bene? s to logic students and instructors with a program speci? cally designed to enhance student engagement. The Aplia assignments build on the exercises in this textbook, and they conform to the language, style, and structure of the book. Let me now turn to alternate ways of approaching the textbook. In genera l, the material in each chapter is arranged so that certain later sections can be skipped without a? ecting subsequent chapters. For example, those wishing a brief treatment of natural deduction in both propositional and predicate logic may want to skip the last three sections of Chapter 7 and the last four (or even ? e) sections of Chapter 8. Chapter 2 can be skipped altogether, although some may want to cover the ? rst section of that chapter as an introduction to Chapter 3. Finally, Chapters 9 through 14 depend only slightly on earlier chapters, so these can be treated in any order one chooses. However, Chapter 14 does depend in part on Chapter 13. Type of Course Traditional logic course Recommended material Chapter 1 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Sections 7. 1–7. 4 Informal logic course, critical reasoning course Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Sections 5. 1–5. Sections 5. 5–5. 6 Sections 6. 1–6. 4 Section 6. 6 Chapter 9 Chapter 12 C hapter 13 Chapter 14 Writing Supplement Section 5. 4 Section 5. 7 Section 6. 5 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Course emphasizing modern formal logic Chapter 1 Sections 4. 1–4. 3 Section 4. 7 Sections 6. 1–6. 5 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Truth Tree Supplement Optional material Chapter 2 Sections 7. 5–7. 7 Chapters 9–14 Chapter 3 Sections 4. 4–4. 6 Sections 5. 1–5. 2 Section 5. 7 Section 6. 6 Preface xvii Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Acknowledgements For their reviews and suggestions leading to this eleventh edition I want to thank the following: Kevin Berry Scott Calef Gabriel Camacho Loren Cannon Victor Cosculluela Thompson Faller Thomas J.Frost Paul Gass Alexander Hall Courtney Hammond Merle Harton Anthony Hanson Ron Jackson William Jamison Sandra Johanson Richard Jones Russel Jones William Lawhead Stephen Leach Keane Lundt Erik Meade Ian MacKinnon Allyson Mount Seyed Mousavian Madeline Muntersbjorn Herminia Reyes Frank Ryan Eric Saidel Stephanie Semler Janet Simpson Aeon Skoble Joshua Smith Paula Smithka Krys Sulewski Brian Tapia William Vanderburgh Mark Vopat David Weise Shannon Grace Werre Katherine D.Witzig Stephen Wykstra Ohio University Ohio Wesleyan University El Paso Community College Humboldt State University Polk State College University of Portland Biola University/Long Beach City College Coppin State University Clayton State University Cuyamaca College Edward Waters College West Valley College Clayton State University University of Alaska Anchorage Green River Community College Howard University Uni versity of Oklahoma University of Mississippi UTPA Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Southern Illinois University–Edwardsville The University of Akron Keene State College University of Alberta University of Toledo San Diego State University Kent State University George Washington University Radford University Su? olk County Community College Bridgewater State College Central Michigan University University of Southern Mississippi Edmonds Community College Foothill College Wichita State University Youngstown State University Gonzaga University Edmonds Community College Southwestern Illinois College Calvin College Of course any errors or omissions that may remain are the result of my own oversight. xviii Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppresse d content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Those who have contributed reviews and suggestions leading to the ten previous editions, and to whom I express my continued thanks, are the following: James T. Anderson, University of San Diego; Carol Anthony, Villanova University; Joseph Asike, Howard University; Harriet E.Baber, University of San Diego; Kent Baldner, Western Michigan University; James Baley, Mary Washington College; Jerome Balmuth, Colgate University; Victor Balowitz, State University of New York, College at Buffalo; Ida Baltikauskas, Century College; Gary Baran, Los Angeles City College; Robert Barnard, University of Mississippi; Gregory Bassham, Kings College; Thora Bayer, Xavier University of Louisiana; David Behan, Agnes Scott College; John Bender, Ohio University, Athens; James O. Bennett, University of Tennessee, Knoxv ille; Victoria Berdon, IUPU Columbus; Robert Berman, Xavier University of Louisana; Joseph Bessie, Normandale Community College; John R. Bosworth, Oklahoma State University; Andrew Botterell, University of Toronto; Tom Browder, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Kevin Browne, Indiana University Southeast; Harold Brown, Northern Illinois University; KenBuckman, University of Texas, Pan American; Robert Burch, Texas A&M University; Keith Burgess-Jackson, University of Texas, Arlington; Michael Byron, Kent State University; James Campbell, University of Toledo; Joseph Keim Campbell, Washington State University; Charles Carr, Arkansas State University; William Carroll, Coppin State University; Jennifer Caseldine-Bracht, IUPU Fort Wayne; John Casey, Northern Illinois University; Greg Cavin, Cypress College; Robert Greg Cavin, Cypress College; Ping-Tung Chang, University of Alaska; Prakash Chenjeri, Southern Oregon University; Drew Christie, University of New Hampshire; Timothy Christion, U niversity of North Texas; Ralph W. Clarke, West Virginia University; David Clowney, Rowan University; Michael Cole, College of William and Mary; Michael J. Colson, Merced College; William F. Cooper, Baylor University; William Cornwell, Salem State College; Victor Cosculluela, Polk Community College; Mike Coste, Front Range Community College; Ronald R. Cox, San Antonio College; Houston A. Craighead, Winthrop University; Donald Cress, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb; Jack Crumley, University of San Diego; Linda Damico, Kennesaw State University; William J.DeAngelis, Northeastern University; Joseph DeMarco, Cleveland State University; Paul DeVries, Wheaton College; Jill Dieterle, Eastern Michigan University; Mary Domski, University of New Mexico; Beverly R. Doss and Richard W. Doss, Orange Coast College; Paul Draper, Purdue University; William A. Drumin, King’s College, Pennsylvania; Clinton Dunagan, Saint Philips College; Paul Eckstein, Bergen Community College; Anne M. Ed wards, Austin Peay State University; Lenore Erickson, Cuesta College; Michael Epperson, California State University, Sacramento; Cassandra Evans, San Diego City College; Evan Fales, University of Iowa; Lewis S. Ford, Old Dominion University; Gary Foulk, Indiana State University, Terre Haute; LeAnn Fowler, Slippery Rock University; Thomas H. Franks, Eastern Michigan University; Bernard D.Freydberg, Slippery Rock University; Frank Fair, Sam Houston State University; Timothy C. Fout, University of Louisville; Craig Fox, California University of Pennsylvania; Dick Gaffney, Siena College; George Gale, University of Missouri, Kansas City; Pieranna Garavaso, University of Minnesota at Morris; Joseph Georges, El Camino College; Kevin Gibson, University of Colorado; Victor Grassian, Los Angeles Harbor College; J. Randall Groves, Ferris State University; Shannon Grace, Edmunds Community College; James Granitto, Santiago Canyon College; Catherine Green, Rockhurst University; James Greene, Nort hern Michigan University; Harold Greenstein, SUNY Brockport; Shahrokh Haghighi, California State University; Alexander W.Hall, Clayton State University; Dean Hamden, Montclair State University; Ken Hanly, Brandon University; Larry Hauser, Alma College; Deborah Heikes, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Ronald Hill, University of San Diego; Lawrence Hinman, University of San Diego; Preface xix Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Dale Lynn Holt, Mississippi State University; John B.Howell, III, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; R. I. G. Hughes, University o f South Carolina, Columbia; Lynn Holt, Mississippi State University; Peter Hutcheson, Texas State University; Debby D. Hutchins, Boston College; William H. Hyde, Golden West College; Sandra Johanson, Green River Community College; Gary Jones, University of San Diego; Glenn C. Joy, Texas State University, San Marcos; Olin Joynton, North Harris County College; Grant Julin, St. Francis University; Glen Kessler, University of Virginia; Charles F. Kielkopf, Ohio State University; Moya Kinchla, Bakersfield College; Bernard W. Kobes, Arizona State University; Keith W.Krasemann, College of DuPage; Richard La Croix, State University College at Buffalo; Sandra LaFave, West Valley College, Saratoga, California; Richard Lee, University of Arkansas; Lory Lemke, University of Minnesota, Morris; Robert Levis, Pasadena City College; Chenyang Li, Monmouth College, Monmouth, Illinois; Ardon Lyon, City University of London; Scott MacDonald, University of Iowa; Krishna Mallick, Salem State College; Tho mas Manig, University of Missouri, Columbia; James Manns, University of Kentucky; Dalman Mayer, Bellevue Community College; Larry D. Mayhew, Western Kentucky University; Leemon McHenry, California State University, Northridge; Robert McKay, Norwich University; Rick McKita, Colorado State University; Phillip McReynolds, Pennsylvania State University; Noel Merino, Humboldt State University; Kenneth R.Merrill, University of Oklahoma; Thomas Michaud, Wheeling Jesuit College; Dolores Miller, University of Missouri, Kansas City; George D. Miller, DePaul University; Richard Miller, East Carolina University; Frederick Mills, Bowie State University; Jeff Mitchell, Arkansas Tech University; John Mize, Long Beach City College; Dwayne Mulder, California State University, Fresno; John D. Mullen, Dowling College; Henry Nardone, Kings College; Theresa Norman, South Texas Community College; David O’Connor, Seton Hall University; Len Olsen, Georgia Southern University; Elane O’Rourke, Moorpark College; Brendan O’Sullivan, Rhodes College; Linda Peterson, University of San Diego; Rodney Peffer, University of San Diego; Robert G.Pielke, El Camino College; Cassandra Pinnick, Western Kentucky University; Nelson Pole, Cleveland State University; Norman Prigge, Bakersfield State University; Gray Prince, West Los Angeles College; R. Puligandla, University of Toledo; T. R. Quigley, Oakland University; Nani Rankin, Indiana University at Kokomo; Robert Redmon, Virginia Commonwealth University; Bruce Reichenbach, Augsburg College; David Ring, Southern Methodist University; Tony Roark, Boise State University; Michael Rooney, Pasadena City College; Phyllis Rooney, Oakland University; Beth Rosdatter, University of Kentucky; Michelle M. Rotert, Rock Valley College; Paul A. Roth, University of Missouri, Saint Louis; Daniel Rothbart, George Mason University; Robert Rupert, University of Colorado, Boulder; Sam Russo, El Camino College; Kelly Salsbery, Stephen F.Austin State University; Eric Saidel, George Washington University; Paul Santelli, Siena College; Stephen Satris, Clemson University; Phil Schneider, Coastal Carolina University; Philip Schneider, George Mason University; James D. Schumaker, University of North Carolina at Charlotte; Stephanie Semler, Radford University; Pat Sewell, University of North Texas; Elizabeth Shadish, El Camino College; Joseph G. Shay, Boston College; Dennis L. Slivinski, California State University, Channel Islands; Arnold Smith, Youngstown State University; JohnChristian Smith, Youngstown State University; Paula Smithka, University of Southern Mississippi; Eric W.Snider, University of Toledo; Bob Snyder, Humboldt University; Joseph Snyder, Anne Arundel Community College; Lynne Spellman, University of Arkansas; David Stern, University of Iowa; James Stuart, Bowling Green State University; John Sullins, Sonoma State University; John Sweigart, James Madison University; Clarendon Swift, Moorpark College; Wayne Swindall, California Baptist College; Bangs Tapscott, University of Utah; Ramon Tello, Shasta College; Jan Thomas, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Phil Thompson, Eastern Illinois University; Richard Tieszen, San Jose State University; Larry Udell, West Chester University; Ted Ulrich, Purdue xx Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. University; Robert Urekew, University of Louisville; William Uzgalis, Oregon State University; Thomas H. Warren, Solano Colleg; Andrew J.Waskey, Dalton State University; Roy Weatherford, University of South Florida; Chris Weigand, Our L ady of the Lake University; David Weinburger, Stockton State College; Paul Weirich, University of Missouri, Columbia; Robert Wengert, University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign; Gerald Joseph Williams, Seton Hall University; Frank Wilson, Bucknell University; W. Kent Wilson, University of Illinois, Chicago; Stephen Wykstra, Calvin College; Marie Zaccaria, Georgia Perimeter College; Jeffrey Zents, University of Texas; Finally, it has been a pleasure working with philosophy editor Joann Kozyrev, development editor Florence Kilgo, project manager Alison Eigel Zade, project editors Emily Winders and Amanda Hellenthal, and editorial assistant Michaela Henry. Preface xxi Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 Basic Concepts 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4 1. 5 1. Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions Recognizing Arguments Deduction and Induction Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity Extended Arguments 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions Logic may be de? ned as the organized body of knowledge, or science, that evaluates arguments. All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We read them in books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them when communicating with friends and associates. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own.Among the bene? ts to be expected from the study of logic is an increase in con? dence that we are making sense when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own. An argument, in its most basic form, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good arguments (at least to that extent), the latter bad argu ments.The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad. As is apparent from the given definition, the term argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal ? ght, as one might  have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features of this de? nition in Additional resources are available on the Logic CourseMate website. 1 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 greater detail. First of all, an a rgument is a group of statements. A statement is a sentence that is either true or false—in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence. The following sentences are statements: Chocolate truffles are loaded with calories. Melatonin helps relieve jet lag. Political candidates always tell the complete truth.No wives ever cheat on their husbands. Tiger Woods plays golf and Maria Sharapova plays tennis. The first two statements are true, the second two false. The last one expresses two statements, both of which are true. Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values of a statement. Thus, the truth value of the ? rst two statements is true, the truth value of the second two is false, and the truth value of the last statement, as well as that of its components, is true. Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or false. Questions, proposals, suggestions, commands, and exclama tions usually cannot, and so are not usually classi? ed as statements.The following sentences are not statements: Where is Khartoum? Let’s go to a movie tonight. I suggest you get contact lenses. Turn off the TV right now. Fantastic! (question) (proposal) (suggestion) (command) (exclamation) The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons or evidence, and the conclusion is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words, the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. Here is an example of an argument: All film stars are celebrities. Halle Berry is a film star.Therefore, Halle Berry is a celebrity. The ? rst two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion. (The claim that the premises support or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word â€Å"therefore. †) In this argument the premises really do support the conclusion, and so the argument is a good one. But consider this argument: Some film stars are men. Cameron Diaz is a film star. Therefore, Cameron Diaz is a man. In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to, and so the argument is not a good one. One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to distinguish premises from conclusions.If what is thought to be a conclusion is really a premise, and vice versa, the subsequent analysis cannot possibly be correct. Many  arguments 2 Chapter 1 Basic Concepts Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to r emove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. contain indicator words that provide clues in identifying premises and conclusion.Some typical conclusion indicators are therefore wherefore thus consequently we may infer accordingly we may conclude it must be that for this reason so entails that hence it follows that implies that as a result 1 Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identi? ed as the conclusion. By process of elimination the other statements in the argument are the premises. Example: Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain. Consequently, torture is not a reliable method of interrogation. The conclusion of this argument is â€Å"Torture is not a reliable method of interrogation,† and the premise is â€Å"Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain. † Premises Claimed evidence Conclusion What is claimed to follow from the evidenceIf an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator. Some typical premise indicators are since as indicated by because for in that may be inferred from as given that seeing that for the reason that in as much as owing to Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identi? ed as a premise. Example: Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus. The premise of this argument is â€Å"The use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus,† and the conclusion is â€Å"Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs. In reviewing the list of indicators, note that â€Å"for this reason† is a conclusion indicator, whereas â€Å"for the reason that† is a premise indicator. â€Å"For this reason† (except Section 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 3 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 hen followed by a colon) means for the reason (premise) that was just given, so what follows is the conclusion. On the other hand, â€Å"for the reason that† announces that a premise is about to be stated. Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise. Consider the following argument: It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved, for wilderness provides essential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species, and it is a natural retreat from the stress of daily life. The premise indicator â€Å"for† goes with both â€Å"Wilderness provide s essential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species,† and â€Å"It is a natural retreat from the stress of daily life. These are the premises. By method of elimination, â€Å"It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved† is the conclusion. Some arguments contain no indicators. With these, the reader/listener must ask such questions as: What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others? What is the arguer trying to prove? What is the main point in the passage? The answers to these questions should point to the conclusion. Example: The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. Not only does the national defense depend on it, but the program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs.Furthermore, at current funding levels the program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential. The conclusion of this argument is the ? rst statement, and all of the other statements are premises. The a rgument illustrates the pattern found in most arguments that lack indicator words: the intended conclusion is stated ? rst, and the remaining statements are then o? ered in support of this ? rst statement. When the argument is restructured according to logical principles, however, the conclusion is always listed after the premises: P1: P2: P3: C: The national defense is dependent on the space program. The space program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs.At current funding levels the space program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential. The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. When restructuring arguments such as this, one should remain as close as possible to the original version, while at the same time attending to the requirement that premises and conclusion be complete sentences that are meaningful in the order in which they are listed. Note that the ? rst two premises are included within the scope of a single sentence in the original argument. For the purposes of this chapter, compound arrangements of statements in which the various components are all claimed to be true will be considered as separate statements.Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor conclusions. Only statements that are actually intended to support the conclusion should be included in the list of premises. If, for example, a statement 4 Chapter 1 Basic Concepts Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. erves merely to introduce the general topic, or merely makes a pas sing comment, it should not be taken as part of the argument. Examples: The claim is often made that malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of health care. But if such suits were outlawed or severely restricted, then patients would have no means of recovery for injuries caused by negligent doctors. Hence, the availability of malpractice litigation should be maintained intact. Massive federal deficits push up interest rates for everyone. Servicing the debt gobbles up a huge portion of the federal budget, which lowers our standard of living. And big deficits also weaken the value of the dollar. For these reasons, Congress must make a determined effort to cut overall spending and raise taxes.Politicians who ignore this reality imperil the future of the nation. 1 In the ? rst argument, the opening statement serves merely to introduce the topic, so it is not part of the argument. The premise is the second statement, and the conclusion is the last statement. In the second argument, the ? nal statement merely makes a passing comment, so it is not part of the argument. The premises are the ? rst three statements, and the statement following â€Å"for these reasons† is the conclusion. Closely related to the concepts of argument and statement are those of inference and proposition. An inference, in the narrow sense of the term, is the reasoning process expressed by an argument.In the broad sense of the term, â€Å"inference† is used interchangeably with â€Å"argument. † Analogously, a proposition, in the narrow sense, is the meaning or information content of a statement. For the purposes of this book, however, â€Å"proposition† and â€Å"statement† are used interchangeably. Note on the History of Logic The person who is generally credited as the father of logic is the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 b. c. ). Aristotle’s predecessors had been interested in the art of constructing persuasive arguments and in techniques for refuting the arguments of others, but it was Aristotle who ? rst devised systematic criteria for analyzing and evaluating arguments.Aristotle’s chief accomplishment is called syllogistic logic, a kind of logic in which the fundamental elements are terms, and arguments are evaluated as good or bad depending on how the terms are arranged in the argument. Chapters 4 and 5 of this textbook are devoted mainly to syllogistic logic. But Aristotle also deserves credit for originating modal logic, a kind of logic that involves such concepts as possibility, necessity, belief, and doubt. In addition, Aristotle catalogued several informal fallacies, a topic treated in Chapter 3 of this book. After Aristotle’s death, another Greek philosopher, Chrysippus (280–206 b. c. ), one of the founders of the Stoic school, developed a logic in which the fundamental elements were whole propositions.Chrysippus treated every proposition as either true or false and developed rules for determining the truth or falsity of compound propositions from the truth or falsity of their components. In the course of doing so, he laid the foundation for the truth functional interpretation of the logical connectives presented in Chapter 6 of this book and introduced the notion of natural deduction, treated in Chapter 7. Section 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 5 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 For thirteen hundred years after the death of Chrysippus, relatively little creative work was done in logic. The physician Galen (a. d. 129†“ca. 199) developed the theory of the compound categorical syllogism, but for the most part philosophers con? ned themselves to writing commentaries on the works of Aristotle and Chrysippus. Boethius (ca. 480–524) is a noteworthy example. The ? rst major logician of the Middle Ages was Peter Abelard (1079–1142). Abelard reconstructed and re? ed the logic of Aristotle and Chrysippus as communicated by Boethius, and he originated a theory of universals that traced the universal character of general terms to concepts in the mind rather than to â€Å"natures† existing outside the mind, as Aristotle had held. In addition, Abelard distinguished arguments that are  valid because of their form from those that are valid because of their content, but he held that only formal validity is the â€Å"perfect† or conclusive variety. The present text

Agency Problem in SOEs of China

Agency problem is a worldwide problem wherever it is in western countries or China. It is inevitable during the development of the firm†s organization. As long as the interests between the owner and management are not aligned, the conflict is existed. Many western firms have established the rules and incentive systems to prevent â€Å"agency problem†. Somehow it works. We find it is not enough to overcome the problem. China has undergone a long period economic reform. During the reform, how to improve the SOEs performance is a hot focus. In the past, all the SOEs were controlled by the government, what the companies† doing were decided by the government, then on one side the executives did not take the full responsibility for the company; on the other side, the officer blamed the managers for the bad performance. There are no clear boundary on the space of freedom and responsibilities. (see Georges Enderle) The â€Å"agency problem† became even worse because of this phenomenon. Now China has tried a lot of methods to establish the modern organization of SOEs. The boundary between the government and the executives of SOEs has been clearly set. Some SOES have been published. However we find that the â€Å"agency problem† still exist more or less and the business ethics do be involved. And business ethics can play a virtually important role in dealing with the â€Å"agency problem during the economic reform. 2. Definition of † agency problem† Before we go further, we need to define what is agent and what is agency problem. Agent is the entity where Management represents owners; the agency relationship is the relationship between the principal and the agent, in which the agency acts for the principal. And what is agency problem? The agency problem results from the separation of management and the ownership of the firm. Agency problem can be clarified as the followings: Agents may consume excessive perks. Agents may shirk (not expend their best efforts). Agents may act in their best interest (instead of the interest of the principal). 3. Why does â€Å"Agency Problem† happen? On the very beginning, most firms were based on the family and their management was the members within the family, and there was not agency problem at all, because the management and ownership were aligned, no interest conflict. As the firms grow, it seems they need high management skills and the existed relationship within the management restricted the growth of the firms. Furthermore, it was much more difficult to raise new equity. Then they hired the professional managers to act as the owners. The agency problem is followed as this organization comes out. Due to the interest is not alignment between the managers and the owners, more or less the managers will pursuit their own profit instead of the owners, which we thought is unethical because of the space of freedom and responsibility are not matched. (see Georges Enderle) and we will discuss later. Although the goal of the firm is the maximization of shareholder†s wealth, in reality the agency problem may interfere with the implementation of this goal. The agency problem results from the separation of management and the ownership of the firm. For example, a firm maybe runs by the professional managers who have little or no ownership in the firm. Because of this separation of the decision-makers and owners, managers may make decisions that are not in line with the goal of maximization of shareholder wealth. They may approach work less energetically and attempt to benefit themselves in terms of salary and perquisites at the expense of shareholders. The cost of â€Å"Agency problem† is obvious. There are the monitoring costs, bonding costs and the residual loss. Monitoring costs are costs incurred by the principle to monitor the actions of the agents (Ex. Annual report to shareholders). Bonding costs are costs incurred by the agent to ensure they will act in the best interests of the principals (binding employment contract). The residual loss is the implicit cost when management and shareholders† interests cannot be aligned, even when bonding and monitoring costs are incurred. We will spend considerable time in monitoring managers and trying to align their interests with shareholders. Managers can be monitored by auditing financial statements and bonded by managers† compensation packages. The interests of managers and shareholders can be aligned by establishing management stock options, bonuses, and perquisites that are directly tired to how closely their decisions coincide with the interest of shareholders. The agency problem will persist unless an incentive structures set up that aligns the interests of managers and shareholders. In other words, what is good for shareholders must also be good for managers. If that is not the case, managers will make decisions in their best interest rather than maximizing shareholder wealth. 4. Does incentives or regulations eliminate the † Agency Problem†? A high level of compensation can result from a pay-for-performance system in which the executive has performed extremely well, or it can be the result of the agency problem, Where the executive is taking advantage of the system. Keep in mind that an executive compensation committee, appointed by the firm†s board of directors, generally recommends the CEO†s compensation package. Also keep in mind the board of directors, although elected by the shareholders, is generally nominated for election by the CEO and thus may be more sympathetic to the CEO†s desires than to the shareholders† best interests. This opens the door for † good old boy† networks to take care of their own and set up a compensation package that rewards, regardless of performance, without attempting to align managers† and shareholders† interests. So it is essential to establish a good controlling and monitoring system, but since it does not work so well or we have not find a perfect mechanical system to prevent it up to now. How should we do then? It is the ethical behavior that † doing the right thing†. A difficulty arises, however, in attempting to define â€Å"doing the right thing†. The problem is that each of us has his or her own set of values, which forms the basis for our personal judgments about what is the right thing to do. Every society adopts a set of rules or laws that prescribe what it believes to be † doing the right thing.† In a sense, we can think of laws as a set of rules that reflect the values of the society as a whole, as they have evolved. However, not all the â€Å"agency problem† has been against the law. As the individuals, they have a right to disagree about what constitutes â€Å"doing the right thing† and we will seldom venture beyond the basic notion that ethical conduct involves abiding by society†s rules. And some of the ethical dilemmas that have arisen with regard to the † agency problem†. These dilemmas generally arise when some individual behavior is ground to be at odds with the wishes of a large portion of the population, even though the behavior is not prohibited within law. Ethical dilemmas can therefore provide a catalyst for discussion. † Is ethics really relevant?† the answer is â€Å"Yes.† First, although business errors can be forgiven, ethical errors tend to end careers and terminate future opportunities. Because unethical behavior eliminates trust, and without trust businesses can not interact. Second, the most damaging event a business can experience is a loss of the public†s confidence in its ethical standards. 5. The agency problems in SOES do involve business ethics dimension. By the definition of the â€Å"agency problem† in the SOEs in China, the managers assigned or appointed are the agents, who manage the assets of the principal.(the country) They have a lot of authorities regarding personnel, funds and fixed assets etc., but they don†t have the corresponding responsibilities. The situation is a result of the mismatch of the space of freedom and responsibility as indicated by Georges Enderle. According to what Prof. Georges Enderle said, the space of freedom and responsibility should match with each other. On one hand, it is unfair for someone to be held responsible for something if he or she doesn†t have the freedom to make decision on it. On the other hand, it will be dangerous for someone to only enjoy the space of freedom without any or less constraints or responsibility. Sooner or later, he or she will abuse the authority to achieve for his or her own interests by hurting others. During the reform of the SOEs organization, the managers are granted with even more authorities for them to better manage their companies. But unfortunately, some managers undertake some unethical or even illegal activities to act against their companies and the country, which has caused a huge loss for our country. It was reported that total lost assets of the country amounted to about RMB 50 billion to 100 billion during the 1990†³s. The main reasons are that the managers of the SOES take advantages of their prevailed positions to gain personal interests for themselves. But they don†t really worry about the loss because they will not be responsible for that. Please read the following case: XXX Company is one of the largest SOES in Guizhou Province. Started from the 1980†³s, the company went into a very difficult situation, making a greater loss every year. Oct. 27, 1999, an extremely shocking news exploded the company: Guifang Jing, the 54-year old, female financial manager were involved in corruption of over RMB7 million. Very soon, she confessed that it was she that took advantage of her position and her professional knowledge to manipulate the financial statements and embezzle the company†s assets. At the beginning, she got involved in the bank accounts transaction directly by using as excuse that the cashier was not familiar with it. She hid 325 bank accounts in total, which amounted to RMB 57 billion in total. At the meantime, she played a lot of tricks in distorting the bank checks and gained RMB12 billion in total. After she embezzled so much money, she started to have an abnormal mentality. One time, when she found that the company still had some cash balance in the bank, she felt very sorry for not having taking out for herself†¦. One day when she was on the business trip, one financial clerk of the company found that one bank check of several ten thousand RMB was missing and he reported to the general manager and the latter reported to the police. Guifang Jing smelt that the police would start investigate very soon. After pondering over for several nights, she eventually recovered her conscience and decided to give herself to the police. Let†s analyze the case. It is true that she broke the law. But if her business ethics had been good enough, she would have not got involved in such illegal and unethical behavior. She was assigned and trusted by the shareholder to have the authority to manage the company assets, but she betrayed her company by abusing her space of freedom, especially when the company was in such a difficult situation. At that time she should have used her professional knowledge and cooperated with her colleagues to improve the financial performance of the company. Another reason was that there was no healthy corporate culture in the company. Employees were not encouraged and rewarded for making contributions to the company. So nobody really cared about the company. That kind of environment gave Guifang Jing opportunities to corrupt such a great amount of money. Upon knowing that the police would investigate the missing bank check, she decided to confess to the police to avoid more serious punishment. Actually, she was at the first stage of Konhlber-Inspired Typology of Ethical Dilemmas. If she had been in a higher stage, for instance, Stage 4 Conform to rules, laws, code, and conventions, or even higher, Stage 5 Follow principles based on respect for people and their rights, she would have not got involved to this crime. But we must be clear that the case of Guifang Jing was only one of the similar cases that happened in the SOEs in the country. Obviously the companies and the whole country need to take action to improve the business ethics, to foster a good and ethical business environment. So far, we have understood why the incentives and regulations cannot and will not solve the agency problems. The agency problems do involve business ethics dimension. Then there is a base for business ethics to play an important role in dealing with the agency problems. As common sense, human acquires knowledge through education, formal or informal. Without education (in a broad sense), people cannot understand the nature and the society. They won†t have their values developed in the process of learning and practice. Of course, they won†t act according to the social behavior orders and norms. Business ethics aims to discuss the business conduct/activities that raise moral issues and to improve â€Å"the ethical quality of decision-making process at all levels†: micro-, meso-, and macro-level (Enderle) through education.

Carl Gustav Jung Essay Example for Free (#2)

Carl Gustav Jung Essay Choose cite format: APA MLA Harvard Chicago ASA IEEE AMA Carl Gustav Jung, (26 July 1875 – 6 June 1961), was a Swiss psychologist and psychiatrist, and the founder of analytical psychology. His work and influence extends way beyond understanding personality, and he is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers to have theorised about life and how people relate to it. However, for the purpose of this assignment I will concentrate on Jung’s theory of Psychological Types. In this essay I aim to demonstrate an understanding of Jung’s personality types by describing and evaluating his theory and to show how they might useful in helping a therapist to determine therapeutic goals. Jung (1990, p.531) states that’ from earliest times, attempts have been made to classify individuals according to types, and so bring order to the chaos. The oldest attempts known to us were made by oriental astrologers who devised the so-called trigons of the four elements – air, water, earth, and fire. The air trigon in the horoscope consists of the three aerial signs of the zodiac, Aquarius, Gemini, Libra; the fire trigon is made up of Aries, Leo, Sagittarius. According to this age old view, whoever is born in these trigons shares in their aerial or fiery nature and will have a corresponding temperament and fate.‘ In the same paragraph, Jung states that ‘the astrological type theory, to the astonishment of the enlightened, still remains intact today,’ which is true. Closely connected with the astrological type theory is the division into the four temperaments which corresponds to the four humors (Jung, 1990, p.531). A Greek physician, Claudius Galen (AD130 – 200), distinguished four basic temperaments: the sanguine, the phlegmatic, the choleric, and the melancholic. Galen’s theory goes back to the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates’ (460 – 370BC), who described physical illness as being caused by the balance of bodily fluids, or humors as he labelled them’ (Maltby, et al, 2007, p.159). These bodily fluids are blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm. Galen expanded on Hippocrates’ theory and applied it to describe human personality, stating that when the humors were in balance, an equitable temperament was the result, however, if the humors were out of balance, then physical illness and mental disturbance occurred (Maltby et al, 2007, p.160). However, ‘by the time of the Middle Ages, scholars dismissed the idea that bodily fluids were directly implicated in personality traits. But the behavioural descriptions associated with the four humours lived on’ (McAdams, 2000, p.256). Galen’s four temperaments provided much inspiration and historical reference for Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types. According to Jung’s theory we are all different in fundamental ways and each psychological type has a different idea of what it means to achieve personal success. However, www.personalitypage.com states that, ‘so many people are hung up on somebody else’s idea of what it means to be successful, that they are unaware of what is truly important to them‘. I agree, because for many years, I wanted to be somebody else as that person’s life seemed so much better than mine, or so I thought at the time. Jung was one of the few psychologists in the twentieth century to maintain that development extends beyond childhood and adolescence through mid-life and into old age (Stevens, 2001, p.38). Jung insisted that ‘we never finish the process of self-examination and growth that charts our journey towards individuation.’ (Snowdon, 2010, p.86). In my case, I believe I am on that journey of accepting myself as I truly am, becoming my true ‘self‘. Stevens (2001, p.38) claims that ‘it could be brought to the highest fruition if one worked with and confronted the unconscious,’ and for me, it is and has been important to face the ‘monsters that lurk’ (Snowdon, 2010, p.86) in my unconscious, even when it has been uncomfortable to do so. According to Jung, like Freud, there are three levels of consciousness in the psyche (mind);- conscious, personal unconscious and collective unconscious. Snowdon (2010, p.56) states that ‘the individual psyche is always changing as it seeks growth and wholeness.’ Jung referred to the ego when describing the more conscious aspect of the personality, the part of the psyche that selects perceptions, thoughts, feelings and memories that may enter our conscious awareness. Stevens (2002, p. 62) states that ‘the ego is then centre of consciousness and is responsible for our continuing sense of identity.’ The personal unconscious comprises of ‘all the acquisitions of personal life, everything forgotten, repressed, subliminally perceived, thought, felt’ (Jung, 1990, p.485). This is an aspect of the unconscious that Freud also emphasized and these forgotten experiences are accessible to consciousness, and for both Freud and Jung, ‘the exploration of the unconscious is the key to personal insight’ (McAdams, 2000, p. 135). Conscious attitudes within the psyche should always be balanced by unconscious attitudes, and Snowdon (2010, p.56) claims that ‘if a conscious attitude grows too strong then the unconscious will always seek to restore equilibrium,’ by means of dreams, fantasies, slips of the tongue and so on. However, if the unconscious message is ignored, then ‘neurosis or even disease may result’ (Stevens, 2010, p.57). Where the personal unconscious is unique for each individual the collective unconscious is not an ‘individual acquisition but rather the functioning of the inherited brain structure, which in its broad outlines is the same in all human beings (Jung, 1954, p.117). Therefore, the collective unconscious represents the shared experiences, emotions and memories we have inherited from previous generations. Jung believed that we were born with a built-in human developmental programme, which is buried deep within the collective unconscious (Snowdon, 2010, p. 80). According to Jung, the personal unconscious contains various complexes, while the collective unconscious contains archetypes (see Fig 1) ‘Complexes are related groups of emotionally charged ideas, thoughts and images’ (Snowdon, 2010, p.61), and can exert a strong influence on the thoughts and behaviour of a person. Some complexes may be beneficial and others may be potentially harmful, and Jung (1990, p.529) states that ‘complexes do not necessarily indicate inferiority. It only means that something discordant, unassimilated, antagonistic exists, perhaps as an obstacle, but also as an incentive to greater effort, and so, perhaps to new possibilities of achievement.’ Therefore, a therapist may use this knowledge to bring to the forefront of the client’s consciousness, a situation which they may be finding difficult to overcome. Complexes can be related to a particular archetype, Stevens (2001, p.48) states that ‘complexes are personifications of archetypes; they are the means through which archetypes manifest themselves in the personal psyche.’ An archetype is a universal thought form or predisposition to respond to the world in certain ways (Jung, 1936), and Jung believed they appeared to us in dreams, myths, religions, art and symptoms. Engler (1991, p.86) claimed that ‘it is helpful for us to get in touch with them because they represent the latent potentially of the psyche.’ The widely recognised archetypes are the persona, the shadow, the anima and the animus, and the self. The persona archetype is the mask that a person wears to hide their true nature from society. The shadow is an unconscious part of the personality that contains weaknesses and other aspects of personality that a person cannot admit to having’ (Snowdon, 2010, p.68). The anima is the unconscious feminine aspect of a man’s personality, and the animus is the masculine aspect of a woman’s personality. The self is the central archetype and true midpoint of the personality (Engler, 1991, p.89). A criticism of Jung’s theory was his lack of empirical research, in which his theory has been attacked as being â€Å"non-falsifiable and unscientific† (Hergenhahn, 1994, p.93). Jung based his psychology on explorations of his own inner world, as well as his work with people ranging from ‘normal’ to those with neurotic problems and even those suffering from psychosis (Snowdon, 2010, p.XXVI). Eysenck (Engler, 2009, p.316) believed that from the point of view of science, Jung’s contribution to the study of personality types was primarily negative as he permitted mystical notions to override empirical data. However, Jung was unconcerned claiming that he ‘cannot experience himself as a scientific problem. Myth is more individual and expresses life more precisely that does science (Stevens, 2001, p.156).’ Jung’s description of personality states that in order to identify a psychological type, it is necessary to determine whether a person’s psychic energy (libido) is turned inwards towards the subject (introversion), or outwards towards the object (extroversion). Introverts are people who prefer their own inner world of thoughts and feelings, whilst extroverts prefer the external world towards external relationships and objects. According to Jung (1990, p.415) ‘the presence of two attitudes is extremely frequent,’ although one is generally dominant and conscious and the other is subordinate and unconscious. However, McAdams (2000, p.310) claims that ‘Eysenck, a British psychologist of German origin, rejected the idea that conscious extroversion is connected to unconscious introversion, and vice versa.’ Unlike Jung, Eysenck linked extroversion and introversion to differences in brain activity, however this theory is speculative and Eysenck acknowledged that his hypotheses ‘must stand and fall by empirical confirmation’ (Eysenck, 1965). Introvert and extrovert dimensions are now found in several theories, one of those being Hans Eysenck’s theory of personality. Although Eysenck expressed considerable disdain for Jung’s approach to psychological types, some of his ideas were rather similar, for example, ’both defined the concepts by making reference to the direction of a person’s approach to life’ (McAdams, 2000, p.309). However, in other ways Eysenck’s concepts were quite difference, for example, whilst Jung believed that a person can be classified as either extroverted or introverted, he believed that most people fall somewhere between the two attitudes, ‘combining qualities of both the extroverted and introverted poles’ (McAdams, p. 310). Like Jung, Eysenck examined historical approaches to personality as well as conducting various methods of research, to uncover the underlying structure of personality. Eysenck suggested that the basic dimensions of personality may be summarised in the diagram below (see Fig 2), which show the two main dimensions of extroversion-introversion and stable-unstable, with the traits associated with each personality type. The diagram also shows how the four temperaments are related to these types. Carl Gustav Jung. (2017, Feb 05).

Compare and contrast Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 16

Compare and contrast - Essay Example She can also be very humorous and sends everybody on the floor laughing at her funny and interesting stories. On the other hand Anne’s personality is quite the opposite and is headstrong, catty and likes voicing her opinion. Mary at times seems to be laid back and brings out the funny bit of herself. Anne brings out the more augmentative and charismatic side .Though they have two completely different personalities, they are fun to be with. Mary is quite the opposite of my character whereas Anne is more like me in personality. My two friends also have interests that are somewhat the same. Anne and I both play football for our school whereas Mary loves snowboarding which she really enjoys. Anne on the other hand enjoys the sport and has gone several times particularly during the winter. Mary is so much into boys and student council. Nevertheless, both of my friends are into extra-curricular activities in various ways. Whereas the two differ in several ways in each category, nevertheless, they both seem to complete my life in various ways. Anne makes me think in a more analytical manner than what I am actually used to whereas Mary makes me view life at a different angle and not in a very serious manner. Even though both of them do not think greatly of one another, I do not know how I would cope without their varying opinions in life not forgetting their immense

International Financial Reporting Standards Research Paper - 1

International Financial Reporting Standards - Research Paper Example The research proposal encompasses background to the proposed research, its objectives and research aim that the researcher will achieve at the completion of the research report. It also includes brief literature review relevant to the subject topic. Moreover, the proposed research methodology that is based on qualitative research along with its limitations is provided. Finally, the research proposal also provides ethical considerations that the researcher has fully understood and acknowledged as a part of conducting such research. Accounting profession has its history that could date back to many centuries. Over the years the accounting profession has evolved through a learning process as economic conditions and ways of doing businesses have drastically changed where new transactions are introduced and the existing rules and regulations are considered insufficient to meet the requirements of a transparent and complete disclosure of companies’ financial positions. All countries have their own accounting regulatory bodies that have either formulated their own standards and practices for businesses to follow or they have simply adopted accounting standards and guidelines developed by one of the well established and regulated frameworks. These standards and guidelines are required to be fully complied with at all times and auditors, and audit committees within organizations are required to ensure that no discrepancies take place. However, from time to time those involved in the global corporate sector are criticized for their deliberate manipulations of firms’ accounts and misuse of accounting standards to present a healthier image of the business. This argument is often raised at times of when recession hits economies as businesses become more susceptible of managing their earnings falsely to attract or retain investment and shareholders turn towards accountants and auditors to seek their assurance regarding

Supply Chain Management case study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Supply Chain Management - Case Study Example Another supplier evaluation research is carried out on the potential suppliers to ensure nothing has been overlooked before making a final decision. Selection of the supplier, negotiations and sending out the RFPs is done at this stage. Selecting the best source and integrating any conflicts in order to ensure the contract will be workable and finally is the monitoring of the supplier through the FedEx Supplier Scorecard system. The supply chain management comprises of a team of individuals assigned different roles and different suppliers to handle. Only one individual associate from the group is assigned to every supplier. The work of the associates is to take responsibility and oversee all the ground work necessary including being in charge of the research and profiling. They are also tasked with the responsibility to manage and nurture the relationship with the suppliers as well as ensuring that the needs of FedEx are well taken care of by the suppliers. They also keep close tabs with the happenings in the market and the other suppliers as well and any changes initiate their renegotiation with their current suppliers. This is carried out to prevent them from being short changed or losing out on new innovations and deals that will make them lose out the competitive advantage they currently hold in the industry. They also handle the decisions revolving around strategic management which means they coordinate the supplier and engineering groups as well as dealing with any challenges brought about by the sourcing process. Yes. The first step of the process that includes research and profiling is carried out by almost all the companies before selecting the best suppliers in the market. This is important for all the companies to doing order to eliminate frauds in the market, ensure they get a good bargain and deal for their money as well as being provided with only the best as long as they can

Cyberlaw Research Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Cyberlaw Research - Essay Example From the essay's analysis, it may be seen that new legislation does indeed impact upon individual liberties. In cases such as that of Jose Padilla discussed in the essay, the actions of the Government have been dismissed by the Courts as violative of constitutional rights to freedom. Terrorists now have access to Cyber weapons such as TEDs, RF munitions, TEMPEST monitoring devices and electromagnetic bombs in addition to the uploading of malicious viruses. By hacking into the access codes for control of weapons and missile systems of the United States of America, or locations such as the World Trade Center, terrorists can create havoc – long distance and unidentified. The purpose of a terrorist attack is to generate fear in the mind of the victim. Serious cyber attacks can be conceived and planned without detectable logistic preparation. They can be invisibly reconnoitered, clandestinely rehearsed, and then mounted in a matter of minutes or even seconds without revealing the i dentity and location of the attacker. Through manipulation of cyberspace architecture and increased surveillance in the US today, online activity is being regulated today. The restrictive immigration laws have ensured that the likelihood of a large scale attack is defused. But this cannot be equated to a victory for terrorists. The researcher states that there must be more emphasis on preserving individual liberties but it is not of a magnitude that justifies the conclusion that the terrorists have won the war.

Plagiarism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 11

Plagiarism - Essay Example Plagiarism may either be a deliberate action or unintentional. According to Plagiarism.org, actions that qualify as plagiarism include submitting other peoples views pretending they are your own views, duplicating other peoples ideas or research without acknowledging their contributions, improper citations which include citing false references, and duplicating the organization of words in a sentences without acknowledging the origin. It is worth noting that plagiarism can be averted through acknowledging the fact that the ideas, views, or sentence organization originated from a particular source (Plagiarism.org). There are a number of ways through which plagiarism can be averted. The secret to writing a plagiarism free essay or research paper is writing everything in owns words. Subsequently, other peoples views ought to be properly referenced of cited. In case one is not conversant with the various citation styles, it would be of significance to seek the help of the teacher or lecturer (Plagiarism.org). Plagiarism.org also asserts that initial preparations prior to the commencement of writing an essay or research paper is important in avoiding plagiarism. Coming up with a succinct sketch out or summary of ideas helps set a benchmark in regard to ideas to be retrieved from other peoples works and own ideas. It is of significance to assert that a writer ought to clearly separate his or her own ideas from those retrieved from other peoples works. However, it is also important to reword other peoples ideas so that a paper can appear original. Cited sources should be from well acclaimed researchers or sources in text citations should include the author of the book of source, year of publication, and page numbers depending on the citation style used. In definition, a citation is referred to as a method or technique used to notify those

Drug-Free Workplace Campaign Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Drug-Free Workplace Campaign - Essay Example Through this mandate, the government has enjoined employers to enforce the drug laws and require employees to take the drug test. The government has also required its own work force, contractors and transport utilities to undergo the same. The 1977 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (no latest data available) showed that 47% of respondents said their employers comply with drug testing. This report showed as many as 50 million drug tests are performed every year in the US, generating revenue of $1.5 billion. Several companies have credited drug-free workplace as a savings in its economic sense, although direct benefit relations cannot be arrived at. For instance, elaws, in 2008 report, noted that after implementing a drug-free workplace, Warner Corp. a small plumbing company in Washington, has saved $485,000 in one year. The company has attributed this savings from a decrease number of accidents in the workplace resulting to lower vehicle insurance premium and lower worker’s compensation cost. The drug-free atmosphere in the company has also attracted applicants and apprentices that has given the company additional savings. Employers who ascribed to this policy noticed a remarkable efficiency increase in the workplace. The US Dept. of Labor said that according to the American Management Association, that as a result of increased awareness on drug testing, human resource managers have assessed perceived effectiveness from â€Å"50 percent in 1987 to 90 percent in 1996†. Jacob Sultum, in a 2002 report, said that back in the 1990s when the news about the epidemic of drug abuse on America came out, employers became scared and started considering drug testing. They do not want some crazy people in the company doing catastrophe and killing someone Drug testing incurs some cost both for the employer and the employees. In 1995, the average annual cost for company sponsored testing for an employee is $26.59 and for $21.47 for