ENV 250 Module One Homework
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
250
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by LieutenantTitaniumKouprey43
ENV 250 Module One Homework
1.
Kelly has two ponds on her farm. Around one pond, she sprayed diazinon, a common pesticide, to get rid of ants. A week later she noticed that the tadpoles in the pond she sprayed diazinon around appear smaller in size than the tadpoles in the other pond where she did not spray. Using the scenario above, write a specific, testable research hypothesis and null hypothesis for Kelly’s observation. Justify your reasoning. Testable Hypothesis: "Tadpoles exposed to diazinon pesticide will exhibit a smaller average size compared to tadpoles in a pesticide-free environment."
Null Hypothesis: "There will be no significant difference in the average size of tadpoles between the pond sprayed with diazinon pesticide and the pond without pesticide exposure."
Inductive Reasoning:
Observation: Kelly observed a size difference in tadpoles between the pond with diazinon exposure and the pond without. Kelly recognized a potential pattern - smaller tadpoles in the diazinon-treated pond. Kelly formulated a hypothesis based on her observation, suggesting that diazinon exposure might be causing the size difference.
In this scenario, Kelly's hypothesis is based on inductive reasoning because it starts with a specific observation (size difference in tadpoles) and generalizes a pattern (possible effect of diazinon). The hypotheses are testable and serve as a basis for conducting experiments to confirm or reject the observed pattern.
2.
Dr. Ramirez noted that many of his patients with lung cancer all work in the same coal mine. He wonders if chronic exposure to coal dust causes cancer. Write a specific, testable research hypothesis and null hypothesis for Dr. Ramirez’s question. Justify your reasoning. Testable Hypothesis: "Chronic exposure to coal dust is significantly associated with an increased
risk of developing lung cancer among individuals working in coal mines."
Null Hypothesis: "There is no significant association between chronic exposure to coal dust and the risk of developing lung cancer among individuals working in coal mines."
Deductive Reasoning:
The deductive reasoning starts with the general knowledge that prolonged exposure to certain occupational hazards, including coal dust, can lead to respiratory problems. From this general premise, a specific hypothesis is derived that chronic exposure to coal dust causes an increased risk of lung cancer among coal mine workers. Then a null hypothesis is formulated suggesting no
significant association between coal dust exposure and lung cancer risk.
In this scenario, Dr. Ramirez's hypothesis is based on deductive reasoning and is then applied to formulate specific and null hypotheses based on the general premise about occupational hazards. The hypotheses are testable and provide a basis for conducting studies to confirm or refute the observed pattern, contributing to the scientific understanding of the relationship between coal dust exposure and lung cancer.
3.
Jackie observed that most of the houses in her neighborhood did not set out recycling cans on trash pick-up day. She wondered if the lack of participation was due to apathy and decided to conduct a formal survey. Write a specific, testable research hypothesis and null hypothesis for Jackie’s observation. Justify your reasoning. Testable Hypothesis: "The lack of participation in recycling can placement on trash pick-up day in the neighborhood is significantly associated with apathy among residents."
Null Hypothesis: "There is no significant association between the lack of participation in recycling can placement on trash pick-up day and residents' apathy in the neighborhood."
Deductive Reasoning:
The deductive reasoning starts with the general understanding that people's behavior, such as recycling habits, can be influenced by attitudes and motivations, including apathy. From this general premise, a specific hypothesis is derived that the lack of recycling can participation is due to apathy among residents in the neighborhood. The null hypothesis is formulated as the opposite of the specific hypothesis, suggesting no significant association between lack of recycling participation and residents' apathy.
Jackie's hypothesis is based deductive reasoning and is then applied to formulate specific and null hypotheses based on the general premise about human behavior and attitudes. These hypotheses are testable and provide a basis for conducting surveys to confirm or refute the observed pattern, contributing to a better understanding of the relationship between residents' attitudes and recycling participation in the neighborhood.
4.
All ducks fly south for the winter. A mallard is a type of duck. Therefore, mallards fly south for the winter. What type of logic is represented in the duck scenario? What is the main caveat for this type of logic? Justify your reasoning. Testable Hypothesis: "Mallards, being a type of duck, will migrate south for the winter."
Null Hypothesis: "There is no significant difference in the winter migration patterns between mallards and other duck species."
The duck scenario represents deductive reasoning. In this case, the premise is that all ducks fly south for the winter, and the conclusion is that mallards, being a type of duck, also fly south for the winter.
In this scenario, if the premise that "all ducks fly south for the winter" is not universally true (which it isn't, as not all duck species migrate south), the conclusion that "mallards fly south for the winter" becomes invalid.
Justification:
The statement "all ducks fly south for the winter" is not true for all duck species. Some ducks are
migratory, while others are not. Therefore, the premise is not universally valid. Since the premise
is not universally true, the conclusion that "mallards fly south for the winter" cannot be validly deduced from the given premise. In summary, deductive reasoning in the duck scenario becomes flawed because the initial premise is not universally accurate. The main caveat for deductive reasoning is that the conclusions drawn are only as valid as the truth of the premises from which they are derived. If the premises are not true, the logic used to draw the conclusion breaks down.
5.
Chinook, Coho, and sockeye salmon return to the stream where they were hatched to spawn. Therefore, all salmon return to the stream where they were hatched to spawn. What type of logic is represented in the salmon scenario? What is the main caveat for this type of logic? Justify your
reasoning. Testable Hypothesis:
"Chinook, Coho, and sockeye salmon will return to the streams where they were hatched to spawn."
Null Hypothesis:
"There is no significant difference in the spawning behavior between Chinook, Coho, and sockeye salmon, and they do not exhibit a preference for returning to the streams where they were hatched."
The salmon scenario represents inductive reasoning. In this case, the premise is that Chinook, Coho, and sockeye salmon return to the stream where they were hatched to spawn, and the conclusion is generalized to all salmon species.
The main caveat for inductive reasoning lies in the assumption that the observed instances or premises are representative of all possible cases. In the salmon scenario, if the observation of these three salmon species is not representative of all salmon species, then the conclusion that "all salmon return to the stream where they were hatched to spawn" becomes invalid.
Justification:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The premise is based on a specific observation of three particular salmon species (Chinook, Coho, and sockeye). It does not encompass all salmon species and their diverse behaviors. The inductive reasoning process involves generalizing from specific observations to a broad conclusion. If the premise does not represent all possible cases (all salmon species), the generalization is not logically sound. There are numerous salmon species, each with distinct migration and spawning behaviors. In summary, inductive reasoning in the salmon scenario becomes problematic because the premise is not universally representative of all salmon species. If the premises are not fully representative, the generalization becomes invalid.