Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island
but have long wondered how Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic
precision. Since archaeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and
hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of
actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. This discovery
explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style:
molds could be used only for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese
sculpting tools have been found. In light of this discovery, collectors predict that
the life-size sculptures will decrease in value while the miniatures increase in value.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in
order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are
reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to
evaluate the prediction.
----------------------------------------------
Essay :
While the statement seems encouraging people to refuse injustice, The statement is too vague and over generalized.it does not account that justice is relative to people and societies. Moreover, it motivates people to resist unjust laws without specifying how. And therefore the consequences of applying this statement can be catastrophic to many societies.

While many people might agree that there are unjust laws, however, the speaker tell us that we should follow what he called “the just laws” and fight “the unjust” ones but justice is not absolute it is relative. Everyone has his own preferences, background and believes. What is just for one may be unjust for another. For example, the laws which decides that children live with their mother after divorce, will be considered just by the mother and unjust by the father. Now where will this law fall according to the speaker classification! Not only people are different but also societies are different. Every society can have its own culture and its own laws. For example, some countries are banning drinking alcohols in the street while others permit this. So, people of these societies can have different opinion about a law which bans drinking alcohols in the street. So as we can see, the term just and unjust itself is too vague and relative.
Accordingly, since justice is relative, everyone will have his own set of laws and there will be no discipline in society. Imagine a football game where players can obey or disobey the referee decisions ,of course, each team will try to do what is better for them and the match will turn into a chaos, in this case the referee cannot satisfy each one but he should be the only one who takes the decision or else the teams will fight each other. Similarly, the law cannot satisfy everyone but it is a set rules for which the majority agrees on and it should be obeyed by everybody in society or else there will be no society and everyone will create his own society.

Further more, if we even assume that there are some laws for which we agree that they are injustice, which is not the case. Now according to the statement we should resist these laws, but how will we resist? While some people may take a peaceful path and try to make their voice reach the parliament or resort to the judgmental authority, other can take a violent path and fight the government, Actually this is how a terrorist think he may be convinced that he is doing the right thing and that he is fighting for justice so this will galvanize the path for terrorism and chaos. It may serve the society better if we all agree to follow “unjust law” than if we fight each other for “justice”.
Finally , although many revolutions occurs because people resist and fight however generalizing the case that every society should do so is a disaster that will harm most of the societies rather than flourish them.




The statement argues that the physical health of the corpora citizens has deteriorated over the past twenty years, Then it refutes the hypothesis suggested by the medical experts that this decline is due to the excessive use of computers, then it correlates the physical fitness in corpora city with the low expenditures of fitness product and services, based on that predicts that the fitness level will increase when the economy recovers. While it might be the case that the physical fitness has declined and that this is caused by the economy level, however the statement is full of unjustified assumption and therefore reaches an unconvincing conclusion.

First , while, the physical health of the city may have decreased , the statement reasons for that are dubious. Although, only twenty five percent of citizens are on the physical standards compared to the fifty percent twenty years ago, it can still be the case that the health is not decreasing at all. May be the physical standard became more strict that they were twenty years ago due to the advancement in medicine and in the fitness studies; and therefore many citizens who would have been on the old standards are excluded. Furthermore, twenty years is long time may be another nearby city was built with more capabilities that attract people who love fitness so that many of the more fit citizens moved there. The argument can be made stronger on this part if the standard where fixed in order to make the evidence more convincing that people really change from what they used to be.
Even if it were the case that the city citizens became less fit. The argument tries to show that it is the case that computers are the reasons for this decline. Although computers might really be not the reason for this , however the argument uses very weak reasons to prove its point of view. It said that since the fittest citizens are also the most people who have computer , then the computer are not the reasons. This is a fault conclusion, may be this is because the people who have money to bought computer also have money to go to expensive gyms and eat healthy food and that in other areas where people are less rich ,computers really affect their activity and cause their fitness to decrease. To reach the stated conclusion, their should be a control group where people are from the same area and the same economical level and the owner ship of a computer is only variable.
Furthermore, the argument is correlating this decline in fitness to the low expenditure on fitness. But why it is not the reverse may be people fitness really declined, due to another reason, and they became less interested to buy fitness products. Moreover, the argument goes further to predict that the fitness will recover when the economy recover without giving any further evidence why this is the case. What if the economy recovers does this guarantee that the expenditure on fitness will increase even if this happens what guarantee that the fitness will increase , may be fast food stores also increases and people eat more.
Finally, fitness and health are very important .It is beneficial to always monitor them and try to detect the reasons for their that affect people activity. However, the argument does not provide enough evidence that economy is reason. Moreover, it has not provide enough evidence even to show that the problem of decreasing fitness really exists.

Debates are considered a very informative way to hear idea from different point of views. It motivates critical thinking and expose the weak points in arguments and therefore encourage people to think critically about their beliefs. However, I don’t agree that this is always the best test for arguments. Although discussing ideas with others will most of the time be informative, this is not a general case. Sometimes debates can be misleading , other times the ideas itself can be very clear that you don’t have to be forced to discuss with others to strengthen your evidence.
First, the reason discussed in the statement asserts that in order to discover the real value of your idea, you have to defend it against the opposite views. Although this reason can be true, in many cases you don’t have to do this. For example, in the scientific community there is a standard way of thinking and experimentation in order to verify your ideas. Once, your experiment outcomes agrees with the prediction of your hypothesis , you publish your work and you don’t have to discuss this in a debate to verify your idea. Actually, you might be experimenting on something new that no body else is knowing yet, So in this case there will be no opposing ideas at all and you can just say that you have discovered something new. For example, when scientist discover new antidote for a certain virus and they have experimented enough to verify the efficiency of this medicine and that it can be used on humans, there don’t have to discuss their ideas in debates but they just need to say their discovery to the world.
Building on the reason discussed in the statement, it claims that the best test for arguments is try to convince someone with opposite point of view. Even if we assume that the reason is true, the conclusion is fallacious. What if the person you are discussing with is not a real expert and not a good representative of the opposing view. Is convincing him a good test for your argument ! actually may be your argument is weak and that he is not a good debater so you will gain the false feeling that you have verified your argument.
Consider also a different situation in which the person you are trying to convince is refractory and not willing to be convinced even if you have impeccable evidence. Do this indicates that your idea is weak. For example, Although supported by equations and observations, Galileo could not convince the church by his view that the earth was rotating around the sun. However this did not weakens his idea and his experimental evidence.
Finally, considering other views is always a good habit. However, claiming that is the best test for all arguments is a very extreme statement which cannot be generalized in all cases as it depend on the idea itself as well as the kind of people you are debating with.






Based on archeologists discovery of some molds of human heads and hands, the argument conclude some assumptions and then predicts that the life-size sculptures will decrease in value while the miniatures increase in value. However, the argument did not support both the assumptions and the prediction with enough evidence and based its conclusions on fallacious logic.
To begin with, although, discovery of human molds is a strong evidence that it was used in the life-size sculptures, this is not enough to conclude that all the sculptures are made this way. May be only some statues are built using the molds while others are done without using them. In order to robust this conclusion, the statement should indicate that these molds where matched with most of the sculptures, and also that the sculptures are all of the same style and quality.
The statement then tries to support its conclusion by saying that this explains why the smaller sculptures are not of the same quality and precision. But this is not a strong point as most likely when things gets smaller it became more difficult to handle and include all the precise details, this may be why it is not of the same quality. Also, when you are sculpturing a smaller scale from the real size you are both scaling and sculpturing and this introduces extra level of difficulty.
Once more , the statement concludes that the mold explains why only few tools were discovered. However, just because a few tools were discovered, it does not mean that they werenot exist a lot in the past. May be we have not discover many of the tools because the tools materials decay quickly and most of them disappear already. Further more, the statement agrees that the miniatures were built using tools, so where are these tools ? Discovering few tools is a thing and concluding that the tools werenot used in the past is another thing.
Finally, even if we assume that all these assumptions were proven ,there is still no enough evidence about the prediction that the value of the life-size sculptures will decrease. The term value is vague here because the value is relative according to the person.The statement is basing the conclusion on the assumption that people values the sculptures according to how they were made not according to their precision, however it did not say any justification why this can be true. May be people will still love to see these molds and how they were used to bulid the sculptures after all they are still very precise and accurate piece of art.
To sum up, the assumptions made from the discovery can be true however the statement failed to provide enough evidence why these can be true. Moreover , it gives an unjustified prediction that even doesnot follows from the assumptions made.