<em>Would a prediction be accurate if the person about to act becomes aware of the prediction prior to the act itself? </em>
This is a classic problem of the deterministic approach to action. If psychology was perfect, it is likely that this would enable psychologists to predict how a person is going to act in any situation. It would also make psychologists able to predict when this act would take place. However, for such a prediction to be useful, the psychologist would have to keep this information from the subject. Otherwise, the knowledge of the prediction could potentially make the person act in a different way, rendering the prediction obsolete.
<em>Does the fact that a prediction can be known in advance disprove the possibility of predicting accurately or is that fact just one more antecedent condition? </em>
The fact that a prediction can be known in advance does disprove the possibility of predicting accurately. The moment a prediction is made, the prediction alters the state of the components that were necessary to know in order to make a prediction. Therefore, the prediction becomes obsolete as the action might or might not happen in the way that was previously predicted.
The first time Odysseus showed his arrogance is when he won the battle at Troy. He yells out to the gods that he doesn't need them. Also, he does not give a sacrifice to the gods for helping the Greeks win the victory. ... In return for his arrogance, the gods create a difficult journey home for Odysseus.
To state your position in a clear and arguments manner .
Your answer is going to be D! The reason that C is not right, is because after 'he added' there should be a comma, to pause before speaking the dialogue.
