HW #10 Possible Answers

 (1)    This is a definition  so we need to look at both necessity and sufficiency. (Sufficiency):  x is a law that treats everybody equally Þ x is just. Here  you need a direct c.e. in which a law does treat everybody equally, but is not just. For example, you might imagine a law that says that everybody will have two fingers cut off; or that nobody is allowed to worship any religious figure; or that nobody can make political remarks. Anything in which it is clear that everybody is indeed being treated equally, but in which the law is clearly unjust, will be OK.

(Necessity): x is just Þ x treats everybody equally. Now you need an example of a law that is just, but that does not treat people equally. You might think about a law that provides special protection for blind pedestrians; or a law that protects children. I’m sure that you will think of lots of compelling examples.

(4)    Also a definition.

(Sufficiency) We need a c.e. in which a boss makes sexual advances to a worker, but it is not sexual harassment. Easiest here is to imagine that the boss and the worker are married. It will be most compelling to imagine that they were married before the worker was assigned to his spouse as boss. It will be strongest to imagine that they make these advances to each other at work, perhaps as a game.

      (Necessity) There are three conditions given - (i) that it is a boss, (ii) making sexual advances, (iii) to a worker. (i) and (iii) are easy, since it is pretty straightforward to imagine sexual harassment between, say, professor and student, doctor and patient, construction worker and passerby, etc. If you do this, it will be stronger if the people are not in a power relationship (as in the third of my three examples above).

       (ii) is a little harder, but a c.e. that attacks it will be stronger, since c.e.s based on (i) and (iii) are so easy to block. But it's not too hard. Imagine a man, suppose he is gay if you like, who makes lewd, crude, and offensive remarks every day to his female secretary about her breasts, about how sexually provocative her clothes are, who speculates loudly about her sex life. Imagine (to make it more compelling) that he does all this hoping to make her angry (not that he gets turned on by anger, mind you - that would undermine the premise) so that she will quit and he can hire his boyfriend. This would be sexual harassment without sexual advances.

4.    Jessica ate her apple pie quickly so that her ice cream wouldn't melt.

E1,2: j makes it the case that [1] in order that [2]

E2: j  is an eating of k   

P2: j  performs k  

Q1: j  is quick

P1: j  is an apple pie

A1: j  melts

i: the universal glob of ice cream

T2: j  is part of k

B2: j  belongs to k

j: Jessica

 $<$x [Px Ù $y[Tyx Ù Byj Ù $z(Tzi Ù Bzj Ù $w[Ewy Ù Pjw Ù E^1,2jQw–Mz])]]