Tutor profile: Maygan M.

Identify the premises and conclusion of the Argument for Evil. Evaluate the argument's validity.

1. God is omnipotent and omniscient. 2. If God is omnipotent & omniscient then evil would not exist. 3. Evil does exist. 4. Therefore, God is either impotent or malevolent. I find that this argument in addition to being valid, is also sound. God’s existence, as well as the existence of evil is fundamental to this argument, besides denying either of these entities entirely there seems to be no logical way out. To deny the existence of evil though, is absurd, and to deny God’s existence seems to defeat the whole argument.

In terms of an argument form, please explain the concept of validity. Additionally, list an example of a valid argument form.

Validity identifies an argument that's conclusion that follows necessarily from it's premises. Further, an argument is valid if and only if, it would be impossible for the premises to be true and for the conclusion to be false. Here a classic example of a valid argument form: modus ponens. 1. If P, then Q 2. P 3. Therefore, Q 1. If you are human, then you are mortal. 2. You are human. 3. Therefore, you are mortal.

The Supreme Court applies three levels of review, known as the standards of scrutiny to review cases involving equal protection issues. In short, these are the tests the court applies in answering if the law or statute in question is constitutional. The three standards are known as (1) rational, (2) intermediate, and (3) strict scrutiny. Further, any law passed must have, at least, a rational basis. These standards involve a two-part analysis of a governmental program that can be broken into two parts. That is, (1) purpose, or why the government passed said law. And, (2) relation, which answers the question of what methods said law uses to achieve that purpose. In your own words please define each standard, and explain how each differs by separating each into it's two respective parts.

1. Rational Basis: (A) Purpose identifies legitimate interest, that is, the government legitimate interest in the issue it is legislating. (B) Relation can be understood as reasonably relation, that is, some average citizen will think there is a connection. 2. Intermediate Scrutiny: (A) Purpose identifies a substantial interest (B) Relation must be narrowly tailored, that is, captures only those things necessary to capture in order to protect that interest. 3. Strict Scrutiny. (A) Purpose identifies a compelling interest. For example, national security qualifies as a compelling government interest. (B) Relation, similarly to intermediate scrutiny, must be narrowly tairlored.