Exam 9: Analogy and Legal and Moral Reasoning

Morgan discovers 6 acquaintances who bought Goodmonth XK-1 tires. All drive conservatively.

Connie is at least as bright as Lydia.

Analogy and Legal Reasoning Henry paid a dog breeder $500 for a pit bull. Prior to the purchase the breeder assured him that the dog would not bite anyone in the household unless it was provoked. Henry brought the dog home, and it gradually became a member of his rowdy family. However, after 10 months, without being provoked, the dog bit his wife, causing serious injury. Henry then filed a lawsuit against the breeder claiming damages for a defective product. After filing the suit Henry discovered that his dog's male parent was vicious. There are two controlling cases in this jurisdiction: Carter v. Ace Electric: Carter bought an electric hairdryer from manufacturer Ace Electric. The hairdryer had a defective ground connection, and Carter suffered injury as a result of this defect. The court ruled in favor of Carter, noting that Ace knew or should have known about this defect at the time the hairdryer was made. Baker v. Harlow Motors: Baker purchased a new car from Harlow Motors, and after 10 months the engine stopped running. During that interval Baker had made several modifications to the engine. The court ruled in favor of Harlow because Baker had modified the engine. Construct two arguments, one supporting Henry, the other supporting the breeder.

Analogy and Legal Reasoning Bob Wilson enjoyed spending time relaxing in the heated spa situated in the back yard of his home. On a couple of occasions he noticed his next door neighbor's four-year old boy, Greg Adams, staring at him through the fence that separated the two yards. One afternoon, while Bob was away at work, and without Bob's permission, Greg climbed the fence, removed the cover from the spa, jumped in, and drowned. Mr. and Mrs. Adams filed suit against Bob for failing to install a lock on the lid of the spa. There are two controlling cases in this jurisdiction: Andrews v. Lewis: While Lewis's home was being remodeled, Andrews was walking in the neighborhood when he noticed the front door of Lewis's home was wide open. Andrews entered the home for the purpose of stealing some of the contractor's tools, but while inside he fell through a hole in the floor that had been covered with tar paper. Andrews, who suffered injury, sued Lewis for maintaining a hazardous condition on the premises. The court ruled in favor of Lewis, noting that Andrews was a trespasser. Garrison v. Fashion Stores: While Mrs. Garrison was shopping at one of the defendant's stores, her five-year-old boy Roger left her side for a few minutes to play on the escalator. Roger was injured by a broken tread. Mrs. Garrison sued the store, and the court found in her favor, noting that the store had a duty to inspect the escalator and take precautions to ensure the safety of the shoppers. Construct two arguments, one supporting Wilson, the other supporting Adams.

Analogy and Moral Reasoning Embryonic stem cell research typically involves the destruction of human embryos. Such research is often criticized because human embryos, it is claimed, are human beings, and the destruction of human beings for research purposes is wrong. Write a short essay either favoring or opposing embryonic stem cell research. Develop as many arguments from analogy as you can think of either supporting or opposing the claim that human embryos are human beings.

Judy always rinses her dishes in the sink before putting them in the dishwasher, but Jasper never rinses anything.

Morgan discovers 6 acquaintances who bought Goodmonth XK-1 tires. All drive cars equipped with CD changers.

Ashley does most of her driving on city streets and freeways, whereas Morgan drives mostly on country roads.

Judy buys the same model dishwasher as Jasper's.

Lydia is a history major, but Connie is a biology major.

Connie doesn't take class notes as well as Lydia does.

Morgan discovers 6 acquaintances who bought Goodmonth XK-1 tires. All drive different model cars.

Analogy and Moral Reasoning A sweatshop is a manufacturing facility where workers are paid pennies per hour to make articles that sell for thousands of times more than what the laborers are paid to produce them. Today, most sweatshops are found in Asian countries, particularly China, and the articles manufactured include every form of clothing, Nike shoes, Barbie dolls for Mattel, Apple iPods, clothing for Disney, and countless other items sold by Walmart and other retailers. Sweatshops hire adults and children as young as 5 years old, and they often house them in firetraps, expose them to dangerous chemicals, deny them bathroom breaks, demand sexual favors from women, and force them to work as long as 15 hours per day, 7 days per week. ​ People who defend sweatshops argue that the workers sign up of their own free will and consider working in a sweatshop to be a highly desirable form of employment. Those who oppose sweatshops scoff at the idea that the choice to work there is made freely because the workers live in desperate poverty and have no other alternative. ​ Sweatshops are legal in most of the countries in which they are found today. But are they moral? Develop as many arguments from analogy you can think of either supporting or opposing the morality of sweatshops.

Morgan's car is blue, but Ashley's is silver colored.

Connie discovers four biology majors who took professor Langley's course in Italian Renaissance history. All four come from different backgrounds and have different interests.

Morgan changes her conclusion to state that she will get at least 45,000 miles of use.

Morgan and Ashley drive the same model car.

Goodmonth recently hired a new Chief Financial Officer.

Analogy and Legal Reasoning Rachel Paulson, an elderly woman with no living relatives and few close friends, lived in a small house with her longtime friend and constant companion Terri, a loveable Yorkshire terrier. One day she brought Terri into a veterinary clinic for a rabies booster. Dr. Curtis, the veterinarian on duty, had just returned from a three martini lunch, and, in place of the rabies vaccine, he negligently injected Terri with a lethal drug used to euthanize sick and dying animals. Terri died as a result of the injection. Paulson then filed suit against Curtis for the wrongful death of Terri, asking the court to award her damages for loss of companionship and emotional distress. There are two controlling cases in this jurisdiction: Maggie's Pets v. Healthy Treats, Inc. Maggie ran a pet store that offered a large number of cats and dogs for sale to the public. One of the pets was Posie, a toy poodle whom Maggie was particularly attached to. As a result of her fondness for Posie, Maggie was stricken with grief when Posie died after having been fed contaminated food made by Healthy Treats, Inc. Maggie filed suit against Healthy Treats for the wrongful death of Posie, and she asked the court to award her damages for loss of companionship and emotional distress. The court ruled against Maggie, holding that Posie was merely her personal property. As a result, Maggie was entitled to recover only what she would have received had she succeed in selling Posie to a customer. Sanders v. Kinderclinic. When Mr. and Mrs. Sanders brought their six-month-old boy Tyler into the Kinderclinic for a check-up, the physician who examined him negligently used a stethoscope that was contaminated with a lethal staph bacterium. As a result, Tyler was infected with the bacterium, and he eventually died from the infection. Tyler's parents sued the clinic for wrongful death. The court found in favor of the parents, awarding them damages for loss of companionship and emotional distress. Construct two arguments, one supporting Paulson, the other supporting Curtis.

Judy changes her conclusion to state that she will get results almost as good as Jasper's.