Topic A: The Gamer’s DilemmaQuestion 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 words)A horror game called Apex Predator allows players to roleplay as a serial killer who stalks, captures, and murders victims. The game emphasizes planning, stealth, and avoiding police detection. Players choose their “signature” methods and can keep trophies from victims. The game includes detailed mechanics for disposal of bodies and cleaning crime scenes. Unlike games where you play as a detective hunting serial killers, this game puts you in the killer’s role throughout. The developers claim it’s a “dark psychological thriller” meant to disturb players and make them question why they’re playing, similar to Spec Ops: The Line. However, there’s no forced moral reckoning – players can complete the game successfully by being an efficient serial killer. The game has developed a cult following.Using Luck’s framework and at least TWO of the arguments we discussed (Arguments 1, 2, 3, or 5), analyze whether this game is morally problematic. Be specific about which principles apply and why.Question 2:(50 minutes, ~500-600 words)Assume Luck is correct that we cannot distinguish virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. You must now choose a position: either defend the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle (all are morally wrong), or defend the permissibility of virtual immoral actions (all are morally permissible).Develop your argument by:(a) Identifying the strongest objection to your position(b) Responding to that objection with specific reasoning(c) Explaining what your position implies for one specific game or game genre (such as Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty, The Last of Us, etc.)Topic B: Sexual Consent & EthicsA jurisdiction that has adopted Pineau’s “nonaggravated sexual assault” category is now debating what penalties should attach to it. Three positions emerge:Position 1: “Same penalties as standard rape, because non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex regardless of whether the perpetrator knew or should have known”Position 2: “Significantly reduced penalties (e.g., probation, mandatory education, community service) because the perpetrator may have genuinely believed they had consent”Position 3: “Tiered penalties based on level of recklessness: minimal penalty for ‘negligent’ cases (should have known better), moderate penalty for ‘reckless’ cases (ignored warning signs), approaching standard rape penalties for severe cases”Your Task:Part 1: Understanding Pineau’s Framework (30 points)a) Purpose of the category: Explain WHY Pineau created the nonaggravated sexual assault category in the first place. What problem was it meant to solve?b) Addressing Roiphe: How does creating this category allow Pineau to take Roiphe’s concerns about autonomy seriously while still protecting potential victims? What does Pineau concede to Roiphe, and what does she refuse to concede?c) Pineau’s preferred penalties: Based on Pineau’s overall goals (deterrence, “equalizing risk between the sexes,” taking consent seriously), which position would she most likely prefer? Why?Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)a) Perverse incentive analysis: Explain why Position 2 might create a “perverse incentive” problem. What behavior might significantly reduced penalties inadvertently encourage? How is this similar to the “punish neither” policy problem in both-drunk cases?b) Dixon’s enforcement concern: Dixon agrees that proceeding without valid consent is morally wrong. Explain what concerns he might have about Position 1 or Position 3 from a legal enforcement perspective. What “new injustices” might criminal penalties create even when moral wrongness exists?c) Error minimization: Using the false positive/false negative framework, explain what types of errors each position might produce. Consider both the error of punishing someone who genuinely believed they had consent AND the error of failing to deter/punish reckless behavior.Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)a) State your position: Which position on penalties do you find most defensible? Or would you recommend something different from all three?b) Defend your choice: Explain what makes your preferred approach compelling. Consider the goals of deterrence, fairness, proportionality, and avoiding perverse incentives. Use course concepts to support your reasoning.c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Identify the strongest objection to your position. This could come from:Roiphe (objecting to ANY criminal penalties for this category)Pineau (if you chose insufficient penalties)Dixon (if you chose penalties he’d consider difficult to enforce fairly)Explain the objection thoroughly and fairly, then respond to it. Show you understand why someone would object even as you defend your position.Topic C: Academic EthicsQuestion 1:Read the scenario below carefully. Apply course concepts about grading, extra credit, college functions, and fairness to analyze the situation. Your response should identify relevant ethical issues, explain which arguments from the course material apply, and recommend a course of action with justification. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Professor Chen teaches Organic Chemistry, known as one of the hardest courses at the university. She notices that some students attend every office hour, complete all optional practice problems, and clearly work extremely hard, but still struggle to pass exams due to the difficulty of the material. She proposes adding an “effort component” worth 15% of the final grade, based on office hour attendance, completion of optional work, and documented study time. High-achieving students who don’t attend office hours (because they don’t need help) argue this penalizes success and rewards inefficiency.Your task: Should Professor Chen implement this policy? Use course concepts about what grades should measure (effort vs. achievement), the sorting function of college, and grade inflation to evaluate this proposal.Question 2:Instructions: Choose ONE of the following prompts. Take a clear position, construct your best argument for that position, anticipate the strongest objection someone could raise, and respond to that objection. Then consider whether there’s a remaining weakness in your position and address it. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Option A: The Priority QuestionPrompt: From society’s perspective (not just as a student or future employee), should colleges prioritize their sorting function (identifying and certifying capable students) or their educating function (developing student abilities)? Take a position and defend it. Then anticipate and respond to the strongest objection to your view.Option B: The Effort vs. Achievement DebatePrompt: Should grades primarily reflect student effort or student achievement? Take a position and construct an argument that goes beyond “both matter” to identify which should be prioritized when they conflict. Anticipate the strongest objection to your position and respond to it.Option C: The Fairness StandardPrompt: Consider this claim: “Extra credit is unfair to high-achieving students because it diminishes the value of their accomplishments—it’s a form of ‘theft of credit.'” Do you agree with this characterization? Take a position, defend it with argument, anticipate a strong objection, and respond.Option D: The Credential Inflation Trade-offPrompt: Some argue that being generous with grades (through extra credit, curving, etc.) helps current students but harms past graduates and future students by making degrees less valuable. Others argue this concern is overblown and that we should prioritize helping students currently in our classes. Which consideration should matter more to professors when setting grading policies? Take a position, defend it, anticipate an objection, and respond.

Topic A: The Gamer’s DilemmaQuestion 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 words)A new game called Empire of Dust allows players to build and manage a drug cartel. Players recruit members, establish territory, bribe officials, and eliminate rivals. The game includes mechanics for intimidating civilians, assassinating journalists and police officers, and trafficking both drugs and people across borders. Players can order torture of informants and execution of family members of rivals to send messages. The game has high production values and treats the subject matter seriously rather than satirically – you manage your criminal empire like a business. Some praise it as a complex strategy game that doesn’t shy away from dark subjects; others condemn it for allowing players to roleplay as murderous criminals targeting real-world professions (journalists, police, judges).Using Luck’s framework and at least TWO of the arguments we discussed (Arguments 1, 2, 3, or 5), analyze whether this game is morally problematic. Be specific about which principles apply and why.Question 2:(50 minutes, ~500-600 words)Assume Luck is correct that we cannot distinguish virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. You must now choose a position: either defend the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle (all are morally wrong), or defend the permissibility of virtual immoral actions (all are morally permissible).Develop your argument by:(a) Identifying the strongest objection to your position(b) Responding to that objection with specific reasoning(c) Explaining what your position implies for one specific game or game genre (such as Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty, The Last of Us, etc.)Topic B: Sexual Consent & EthicsA university is revising its sexual misconduct policy specifically for cases where both parties were voluntarily intoxicated. The disciplinary committee is debating between three approaches:Policy X: “No disciplinary action when both parties were voluntarily intoxicated, as both bear equal responsibility for their impaired judgment”Policy Y: “Investigate to determine which party was more impaired or more responsible, and hold only that party accountable”Policy Z: “Hold both parties responsible for failure to ensure valid consent, but impose reduced penalties compared to cases where one party was sober”Your Task:Part 1: Theoretical Positions (30 points)Explain which policy each theorist would prefer and why:a) Roiphe’s position: Which policy would she prefer? Use her concept of women as “autonomous adults responsible for the consequences of their use of alcohol.”b) Pineau’s position: Which policy would she prefer? Reference her “communicative sexuality” standard and the duty both parties have to ensure valid consent.c) Dixon’s position: Dixon agrees with Pineau morally but has concerns about legal enforcement. How might his position differ from Pineau’s when choosing between these policies?Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)Apply key concepts from the course to analyze these policies:a) Perverse incentive analysis: Explain why Policy X creates a “perverse incentive” that undermines Pineau’s goals. What behavior would this policy inadvertently encourage? Why is this the opposite of what Pineau wants?b) Enforcement challenges: Explain one practical problem with fairly enforcing Policy Y or Policy Z. Consider issues like evidence, determining relative responsibility, or the problem of preemptive accusations.c) Error types: Using Pineau’s false positive/false negative framework, identify what type of error each policy might produce. Which policy minimizes the most harmful type of error?Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)Defend your own view on which policy the university should adopt:a) State your position clearly: Which policy do you think best balances the competing concerns of fairness, victim protection, and practical enforceability?b) Explain what makes it compelling: Give at least two reasons why this policy is preferable to the alternatives. Use concepts from the course (false +/-, perverse incentives, “erring on the side of no,” autonomy concerns, enforcement feasibility, etc.).c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Identify the strongest objection to your chosen policy from one of the theorists who would disagree with you (Roiphe, Pineau, or Dixon). Explain this objection fairly, then respond to it. Your response should show why your position can address this concern or why the objection, though legitimate, doesn’t outweigh your policy’s advantages.Topic C: Academic EthicsQuestion 1:Read the scenario below carefully. Apply course concepts about grading, extra credit, college functions, and fairness to analyze the situation. Your response should identify relevant ethical issues, explain which arguments from the course material apply, and recommend a course of action with justification. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Professor Williams teaches an upper-level Economics course. She learns that students from wealthier backgrounds in her class have been hiring private tutors who essentially teach the entire course content one-on-one, giving these students a significant advantage. To level the playing field, she considers offering extra credit opportunities that don’t require outside resources—things like attending free campus lectures, completing reflection assignments, or participating in study groups she organizes. Critics argue this doesn’t solve the fundamental problem and creates new fairness issues.Your task: Would this extra credit policy address the inequality problem or create new problems? Apply course concepts about systematic injustice, fairness in extra credit, and alternatives to extra credit in your analysis.Question 2:Instructions: Choose ONE of the following prompts. Take a clear position, construct your best argument for that position, anticipate the strongest objection someone could raise, and respond to that objection. Then consider whether there’s a remaining weakness in your position and address it. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Option A: The Priority QuestionPrompt: From society’s perspective (not just as a student or future employee), should colleges prioritize their sorting function (identifying and certifying capable students) or their educating function (developing student abilities)? Take a position and defend it. Then anticipate and respond to the strongest objection to your view.Option B: The Effort vs. Achievement DebatePrompt: Should grades primarily reflect student effort or student achievement? Take a position and construct an argument that goes beyond “both matter” to identify which should be prioritized when they conflict. Anticipate the strongest objection to your position and respond to it.Option C: The Fairness StandardPrompt: Consider this claim: “Extra credit is unfair to high-achieving students because it diminishes the value of their accomplishments—it’s a form of ‘theft of credit.'” Do you agree with this characterization? Take a position, defend it with argument, anticipate a strong objection, and respond.Option D: The Credential Inflation Trade-offPrompt: Some argue that being generous with grades (through extra credit, curving, etc.) helps current students but harms past graduates and future students by making degrees less valuable. Others argue this concern is overblown and that we should prioritize helping students currently in our classes. Which consideration should matter more to professors when setting grading policies? Take a position, defend it, anticipate an objection, and respond.

Topic A: The Gamer’s DilemmaQuestion 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 words)A game called Purification allows players to target and attack members of various minority groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Players choose their “ideology” and then hunt victims in urban environments. The attacks can range from vandalism and assault to murder. The game includes mechanics for posting manifestos online and recruiting followers. While the game uses fictional group names, the targets are transparently based on real minorities. The game has been banned in several countries but remains available through certain platforms. A small community defends it on free speech grounds, arguing it’s no different from games that allow you to kill anyone, and that singling it out for criticism violates Luck’s Argument 4 (since other games don’t restrict who you can kill).Using Luck’s framework and at least TWO of the arguments we discussed (Arguments 1, 2, 3, or 5), analyze whether this game is morally problematic. Be specific about which principles apply and why. (Note: You may also wish to discuss whether Argument 4 actually helps or hurts the defense of this game.)Question 2:(50 minutes, ~500-600 words)Assume Luck is correct that we cannot distinguish virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. You must now choose a position: either defend the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle (all are morally wrong), or defend the permissibility of virtual immoral actions (all are morally permissible).Develop your argument by:(a) Identifying the strongest objection to your position(b) Responding to that objection with specific reasoning(c) Explaining what your position implies for one specific game or game genre (such as Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty, The Last of Us, etc.)Topic B: Sexual Consent & EthicsA jurisdiction that has adopted Pineau’s “nonaggravated sexual assault” category is now debating what penalties should attach to it. Three positions emerge:Position 1: “Same penalties as standard rape, because non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex regardless of whether the perpetrator knew or should have known”Position 2: “Significantly reduced penalties (e.g., probation, mandatory education, community service) because the perpetrator may have genuinely believed they had consent”Position 3: “Tiered penalties based on level of recklessness: minimal penalty for ‘negligent’ cases (should have known better), moderate penalty for ‘reckless’ cases (ignored warning signs), approaching standard rape penalties for severe cases”Your Task:Part 1: Understanding Pineau’s Framework (30 points)a) Purpose of the category: Explain WHY Pineau created the nonaggravated sexual assault category in the first place. What problem was it meant to solve?b) Addressing Roiphe: How does creating this category allow Pineau to take Roiphe’s concerns about autonomy seriously while still protecting potential victims? What does Pineau concede to Roiphe, and what does she refuse to concede?c) Pineau’s preferred penalties: Based on Pineau’s overall goals (deterrence, “equalizing risk between the sexes,” taking consent seriously), which position would she most likely prefer? Why?Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)a) Perverse incentive analysis: Explain why Position 2 might create a “perverse incentive” problem. What behavior might significantly reduced penalties inadvertently encourage? How is this similar to the “punish neither” policy problem in both-drunk cases?b) Dixon’s enforcement concern: Dixon agrees that proceeding without valid consent is morally wrong. Explain what concerns he might have about Position 1 or Position 3 from a legal enforcement perspective. What “new injustices” might criminal penalties create even when moral wrongness exists?c) Error minimization: Using the false positive/false negative framework, explain what types of errors each position might produce. Consider both the error of punishing someone who genuinely believed they had consent AND the error of failing to deter/punish reckless behavior.Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)a) State your position: Which position on penalties do you find most defensible? Or would you recommend something different from all three?b) Defend your choice: Explain what makes your preferred approach compelling. Consider the goals of deterrence, fairness, proportionality, and avoiding perverse incentives. Use course concepts to support your reasoning.c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Identify the strongest objection to your position. This could come from:Roiphe (objecting to ANY criminal penalties for this category)Pineau (if you chose insufficient penalties)Dixon (if you chose penalties he’d consider difficult to enforce fairly)Explain the objection thoroughly and fairly, then respond to it. Show you understand why someone would object even as you defend your position.Topic C: Academic EthicsQuestion 1:Read the scenario below carefully. Apply course concepts about grading, extra credit, college functions, and fairness to analyze the situation. Your response should identify relevant ethical issues, explain which arguments from the course material apply, and recommend a course of action with justification. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Professor Williams teaches an upper-level Economics course. She learns that students from wealthier backgrounds in her class have been hiring private tutors who essentially teach the entire course content one-on-one, giving these students a significant advantage. To level the playing field, she considers offering extra credit opportunities that don’t require outside resources—things like attending free campus lectures, completing reflection assignments, or participating in study groups she organizes. Critics argue this doesn’t solve the fundamental problem and creates new fairness issues.Your task: Would this extra credit policy address the inequality problem or create new problems? Apply course concepts about systematic injustice, fairness in extra credit, and alternatives to extra credit in your analysis.Question 2:Instructions: Choose ONE of the following prompts. Take a clear position, construct your best argument for that position, anticipate the strongest objection someone could raise, and respond to that objection. Then consider whether there’s a remaining weakness in your position and address it. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Option A: The Priority QuestionPrompt: From society’s perspective (not just as a student or future employee), should colleges prioritize their sorting function (identifying and certifying capable students) or their educating function (developing student abilities)? Take a position and defend it. Then anticipate and respond to the strongest objection to your view.Option B: The Effort vs. Achievement DebatePrompt: Should grades primarily reflect student effort or student achievement? Take a position and construct an argument that goes beyond “both matter” to identify which should be prioritized when they conflict. Anticipate the strongest objection to your position and respond to it.Option C: The Fairness StandardPrompt: Consider this claim: “Extra credit is unfair to high-achieving students because it diminishes the value of their accomplishments—it’s a form of ‘theft of credit.'” Do you agree with this characterization? Take a position, defend it with argument, anticipate a strong objection, and respond.Option D: The Credential Inflation Trade-offPrompt: Some argue that being generous with grades (through extra credit, curving, etc.) helps current students but harms past graduates and future students by making degrees less valuable. Others argue this concern is overblown and that we should prioritize helping students currently in our classes. Which consideration should matter more to professors when setting grading policies? Take a position, defend it, anticipate an objection, and respond.

You just delivered a baby boy. His body is pink, but his hands and feet are blue. Vital signs are P110, R rapid and irregular. He has a weak cry when stimulated and resists attempts to straighten his legs. His APGAR score is:

What FiO2 should your blender be set at when you are preparing for a delivery?

The foot of an infant should be warmed before attempting a CAP gas.

A 2 kg neonate is intubated with a 3.0 mm ID ETT. What length marking at the lips most likely respresents the correct depth of insertion?

What is the normal PIP/PEEP the self inflating bag should be set to prior to a delivery?

According to the Silverman Respiratory Assessment, a score of over 7 means _________________.

An APGAR score of 5 indicates _____________.