Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Liu 1

Evan Liu

Phil 130

4/29/18

Final: Take Home Questions

1a. This additional fact weakens the argument. There is a disanalogy between the market 6 months ago,

when the stocks were rising, and the market in the last 2 weeks, when the market was in a steep decline. The

conclusion that the value of the stocks will be exactly doubled is also very specific and also weakens the argument

because any denomination from exactly double the value of what he paid for the stocks would be less likely.

(Principle 3 and 6)

1b. This additional fact strengthens the argument. There is an increase in similarity between the primary

and secondary analogue in the form of the same management team. (Principle 2)

1c. This additional fact strengthens the argument. There is an introduction of 5 new similar primary

analogues. (Principle 4)

1d. This additional fact strengthens the argument. The primary analogues are very diverse and specialize in

different things. (Principle 5)

1e. This fact weakens the argument. There is a disanalogy where E-Boot sells shoes and E-Tron sells

electronics. The survey showed that people were less likely to buy electronics online. (Principle 3)

1f. This fact weakens the argument. Two new primary analogues were introduced, but they are counter

analogies to the other ones. (Principle 4)

1g. This fact neither weakens nor strengthens the argument. There is no direct relationship between this fact

and the primary and secondary analogues.

1h. This fact weakens the argument. It is irrelevant where the online companies are based. (Principle 1)

1i. this fact weakens the argument. There is a disanalogy where E-Boot introduced its products with a

major ad campaign, whereas E-Tron did not. (Principle 3)

1j. This fact weakens the argument. Andrew changed his conclusion from twice the value that he purchased

the stocks to three times the amount. He did not necessarily make the conclusion any more specific but he made it

less likely by raising the value. Like his earlier conclusion, any deviation from exactly three times the value of what

he put in will make his argument wrong. (principle 6)


Liu 2

2.

Isabel: The legal doctrine of constructive eviction states that a landlord who substantially interferes with a

tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises is considered to have evicted the tenant and, therefore, cannot collect

rent from the tenant. In the lease signed by Isabel and all tenants renting an apartment from Carolyn, it is stated that

noise is to be kept at a minimum in the evening hours. When Isabel moved in, she had found that another tenant

would consistently play extremely loud music throughout the night. When Isabel tried to contact Carolyn, Carolyn

refused to help. Because of the loud and overbearing music, Isabel could not properly use or enjoy the premises.

Carolyn’s refusal to enforce her own rules is, therefore, considered eviction. A previous case similar to this one is

Garvin v. Linder. Linder rented an apartment from Garvin, and the lease stated that heat would be provided to

Linder by Garvin in the winter months. Come winter, Linder was provided heat for only an hour a day and was

unable to use or enjoy the space. Linder was forced to move out and, like our case, was sued for rent. The court

ruled on the side of Linder on the grounds of constructive eviction. Like Linder was promised heat for the winter,

Isabel was promised minimal noise in the evening. Both were denied these accommodations and were unable to

properly live in their rented space. Carolyn has substantially interfered with her tenant’s use and enjoyment of the

premises and is considered to have evicted Isabel.

Carolyn: Constructive eviction is used to describe situations in which the landlord fails to do something in

which he is legally required to provide (i.e. water, heat, electricity) making the property unlivable. However, in

order to take action for such damages, the tenant must prove that the uninhabitable conditions were the result of the

landlord’s actions and not that of a third party. The high level of noise claimed by the tenant was not the landlord’s

doing, but that of a third party. Under common law, the relationship between the tenant and their landlord raises a

guarantee that the landlord will protect the tenant from any disturbance approved or caused by the landlord. The

tenant cannot claim every disturbance as a violation of the lease just like how in Quincy V. Fulton, the tenant can’t

blame the landlord for having a routine maintenance on the elevator. Therefore, this is not a case of Constructive

Eviction.

3. In James and Leslie’s case, they are torn between whether or not they should keep the embryos or destroy them.

Legally the assets owned by the two are supposed to be split equally. They do not seem to have an issue with their
Liu 3

assets other than the embryos. The question is, are the embryos considered an asset or are they considered a life. The

current definition of life is the ability to maintain homeostasis, undergo metabolism, and grow.

James: Because the embryos are not inside the mother, they do not have the ability to maintain homeostasis,

undergo metabolism, or grow. This means that it cannot be considered a life and is, therefore, an asset. However, if

the embryos are inserted into Leslie, then they become a life and would mean that an inserted embryo will

eventually become a child. This would mean that James would have to pay for child support. Because the embryos

are only an asset currently, James should have the right to not consent to the embryos being inserted and growing

into a child. It is like throwing away a seed because one decides that they did not want to grow flowers.

Leslie: The embryos may not currently fit the description of life currently, but they have the potential to become a

life if inserted into her womb. Also, because the embryos are an asset, half of them also belong to Leslie. James

destroying the embryos is like one artist destroying a work of art that they had worked on with another artist without

the consent of the other artist.