Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Evan Liu
Phil 130
4/29/18
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
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
1g. This fact neither weakens nor strengthens the argument. There is no direct relationship between this fact
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
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
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
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