Answer:
I believe the answer is Self control
Hope this helps :)
Explanation:
Answer: C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.
Explanation:
There is a flaw in the evidence presented by the lawyer, several flaws actually:
- The client could have been the culprit and left the main door and garage open as an alibi.
- There is no mention of there being an altercation with a thief that cost the wife her life.
- There is no mention of things being stolen to prove that it was a thief.
The attorney used one logic and deduced a flawed conclusion from it so the option that is similar has to do the same as the above.
Option A is not applicable here as blame was taken by the perpetrator.
Option B is not flawed as one would be expected to be late in such circumstances.
Option C has a flaw because performing exceedingly well is relative. Amy could simply be performing exceedingly well in relation to past races. Amy's co-participants could have performed even better which is why they won medals and while Amy performed exceedingly well by her standards, it was not enough to win a medal.
Option D has no flaw. It is a logical deduction and argument just like option E.
That people were supposedly being treated improperly
Answer:
Ethical theories have rules/principles that are used to determine right or wrong in any given situation. In this situation will be used Utilitarian, Kant and Natural law theories.
Utilitarians: use to consider the greatest good for all, so is the case to consider if a homosexual relation is beneficial to all involved. Also society judgment should depend on if it had good or bad social consequences. For Kant’s ethics (which is basically based on reason not emotion) the actions are judged in terms of respects for others and should be based on honesty and good intentions. Finally, for Natural law ethics it would be analyzed from whether the practice is consistent with the human nature.
