...notice established not only the generally recognized claim, but also its conditions and limitations. In addition to the regulatory options for qualified health claims, the ANPR also requested comments on several issues identified in the FDA Task Force Report: • Data and research on a substance-disease relationship, including incentives for developing the data needed to obtain significant scientific agreement • Revised claim language for qualified health claims • Use of interim final rules for health claims and the balance of timeliness versus comprehensiveness of FDA’s review • Use of phrases such as “FDA authorized” in health claims • Consumer education • Data evaluations by outside scientific groups • The definition of “competent and reliable scientific evidence” for purposes of supporting a qualified health claim, and • The definition and criteria for dietary guidance statements. The ANPR public comment period ended on Feb. 25, 2004. FDA also re-opened the comment period for a 1995 proposed rule on general requirements for health claims to seek comments on the minimum nutrient content and disqualifying nutrient levels requirements for health claims, and the use of abbreviated health claims. This new public comment period for the 1995 proposal ended on July 6, 2004 [76]. To date, FDA has exercised enforcement discretion to allow qualified health claims for selenium and cancer, antioxidant vitamins and cancer, nuts and heart disease, walnuts and heart disease, omega-3 fatty acids...
Words: 845 - Pages: 4
...Week 1 Discussion The Nature of Argument After reading the "Preface," "Introduction," and Chapter 1 in your course text, The Rulebook for Arguments, consider the nature and purpose of argument. Consider the different forms that arguments can take. As you prepare for this Discussion, be sure to focus on rules one through seven presented in Chapter 1. With these thoughts in mind: * Select two of the rules that either you or one of your associates have broken in the past. * Illustrate an example of an incorrect and a correct use of each of these two rules. * Discuss why the rules are important in formulating strong arguments. One of the rules that I have recently broken myself was in my last course. For an assignment I used language and words to further emphasis the point of my paper. Now, after reading thru the 7 rules to consider when posing an argument I now understand that use of loaded language is not an effective way to back any of my premises. After thinking about this further, breaking this rule only allowed me to present my paper in a opinioned manner which clearly is going to take away from the validity of the points/issue being addressed. A second rule that is overly annoying to me in real-life, is when a member of senior management does not use definite, specific, or concrete language. Reading that this is one of the general rules in posing an argument this rule really hit home for me. From my experience, I often find that when I asks questions...
Words: 402 - Pages: 2
...understandable reasons, this is a popular argument in favor of act utilitarianism. Another pro for act utilitarianism includes the fact that it reveals how moral questions can have objectively true answers. Individuals tend to think that morality is subjective, depending only on people’s desires. This being said, act utilitarianism actually provides a method for showing, which moral beliefs are true and which are false. If the utilitarian perspective is agreed upon and utilized, then decisions about how one should act will depend on the actual consequences of the each action. When one can predict the amount of utility and good that could be results produced by various possible actions, they will know which actions are right or wrong. Act utilitarianism also rejects the concept of rigid rule-based moralities to classify and determine actions as right or wrong. It argues that it is wrong to treat actions as right or wrong because the effects of actions vary when decided in different contexts. Plus, morality must focus on the probable effects of individual actions. These effects will be the determinants of whether they are right or wrong in each specific case. Although act utilitarians acknowledge that it could be useful to have moral rules that are general guidelines, they insist that if more good can result by violating a rule rather than obeying it, then the person should violate the rule. Essentially, there is not a reason to abide by a rule if more good can be achieved and resulted...
Words: 1205 - Pages: 5
...Should the UK have a codified constitution? A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of government. Constitutions can be uncodified, like the UK’s at the moment, or codified in the case of the USA’s for example. A codified constitution is authoritative, entrenched and judiciable, everything that an uncodified constitution isn’t. On the one hand there are many arguments supporting the view that the UK should adopt a codified constitution. If a codified constitution were introduced, the key constitutional rules would be collected together in a single document, and they would be more clearly defined than in an ‘unwritten’ constitution where rules are spread across many different documents. A codified constitution would create less confusion about the meaning of constitutional rules and greater certainty that they can be enforced. A second argument supporting a codified constitution is limited government. A codified constitution would cut government down to size. A codified constitution would effectively end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and subsequently elective dictatorship. Elective dictatorship is a constitutional imbalance in which executive power is abused to allow governments to win elections. In the UK, it is reflected in the ability of a government to act in any way it pleases as long as it maintains control of the House of Commons. It would not be possible for government to interfere with the constitution...
Words: 716 - Pages: 3
...it is interpreted how it is read, there is no valid reason for the seizure so this search and the evidence obtained cannot be permitted in court. The trial court disagreed with Heien, but his appeal in the North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed that the law required only one working stop lamp. Following the first holding, the court of appeals concluded that Hein’s traffic stop vioated the Fourth Amendment because an officer’s mistake of law is not an objectively reasonable justification for a traffic stop (Brief of Petitioner 5). After concluding the stop invalid, the court of appeals determined the evidence the officers obtained in the search had to be suppressed due to the exclusionary rule. Some state courts and the federal court recognize the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, where an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can fight withholding the evidence in court. North Carolina does not recognize any good-faith exceptions within its constitution, so it was not a factor in this case. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted discretionary review of the case and immediately turned its focus to the Fourth Amendment question (Brief of Petitioner 15). The North Carolina Supreme Court then turned its attention to the Fourth Amendment issue of the case and observed that many federal and state courts have determined different answers to whether a stop is justified when an officer makes a mistake but reasonably believes there to be a traffic violation. The North Carolina...
Words: 3506 - Pages: 15
...clicker”(Conlin, 2007). My Position My overview position is traditional position I believe that Organizational or Companies have the right tell employees what do on company’s time but at employees can do what they wish at the privacy of their own home. Argument # 1 Controversial Argument Corporations find new ways to save money, as Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. and other organization are banning employees from smoking, regardless of whether it is done on company or personal time. Scotts believes if you work of us you are band from certain things. Traditional Position Rebuttal Some times in a job you must bring your work home; organizations are saying you must bring their rules and regulation home. Many organizations such as Scotts is trying to control people personal life outside of work. Such organization that help employees outside of work as NWI(National Work Rights Institute), is protecting employees and their rights at home. It should not matter if you work for a certain company, employees have rights. If an organization keeps over stepping their employee’s right they eventually going to run into lawsuit which will cost the organization money and people will not want to work at that company. Controversial position Argument A “private business, large or small can legally ignore...
Words: 3437 - Pages: 14
...clicker”(Conlin, 2007). My Position My overview position is traditional position I believe that Organizational or Companies have the right tell employees what do on company’s time but at employees can do what they wish at the privacy of their own home. Argument # 1 Controversial Argument Corporations find new ways to save money, as Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. and other organization are banning employees from smoking, regardless of whether it is done on company or personal time. Scotts believes if you work of us you are band from certain things. Traditional Position Rebuttal Some times in a job you must bring your work home; organizations are saying you must bring their rules and regulation home. Many organizations such as Scotts is trying to control people personal life outside of work. Such organization that help employees outside of work as NWI(National Work Rights Institute), is protecting employees and their rights at home. It should not matter if you work for a certain company, employees have rights. If an organization keeps over stepping their employee’s right they eventually going to run into lawsuit which will cost the organization money and people will not want to work at that company. Controversial position Argument A “private business, large or small can legally...
Words: 3441 - Pages: 14
...Descartes Exam Questions & Notes (PHIL 1F90) Give a detailed account of Descartes’ systematic doubt or methodic doubt in Meditation I making certain to distinguish between real doubts and hypothetical or metaphysical doubts. Then explain how Descartes dispels each of these doubts during the course of the subsequent Meditations beginning with the cogito in Meditation 2. A methodic or systematic doubt refers to the common sense or naïve realism. So common sense or naïve realism is the belief that all knowledge comes from or through the senses. Naïve realism are things that are exactly as they appear to be and they appear to be exactly the way they are; a teacup for example. It’s possible to doubt naïve realism in that senses are not always truthful. The difference between real and hypothetical or metaphysical doubt is that Real Doubt are doubts we actually have such as those that really do happen; for example, things that happen sometimes, occasionally, or once in a while. Metaphysical Doubt on the other hand are doubts that could happen. It’s like a logical extension of real doubt, logical possibilities for example “let us assume, what if, I will therefore suppose that.” Sometimes is also considered a real doubt for example “Sometimes my senses do deceive me.” It’s important to note that external conditions are not ideal. Descartes discusses the lunatic hypothesis and the dream hypothesis. He says that in a lunatic hypothesis internal conditions are not ideal since a lunatic...
Words: 1441 - Pages: 6
...memorials make up 50% of the total score, a proper presentation of the written arguments, in conformity with the Rules of Procedure, is vital in a competition that is getting more competitive each year. Why such an emphasize on presentation? Is the legal reasoning not the most important issue in this competition? Certainly so, but every participant should realize that also in legal practice, solidly and neatly presented legal documents are a "must". A well-written submission, a logically built-up argument is easier for a judge to understand. He or she is more likely to pick up counsel's line of argument and, hopefully, its submission. Uniformly used editing rules make it easier for a judge to find the documents, referred to in the Memorials and it will be easier for him or her to read through the document in general. A well written and neatly and uniformly presented document will show the judge that effort is being put into the case. Combine that with excellent legal arguments and most judges will at least be willing to listen to your case with an open mind.Clarity and consistency is key. As the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Krajišnik (18 October 2007) reminds us:''the forcefulness and efficacy of an appeals brief submission does not hinge on the number of words used to support an argument but rather on the clarity and coherence of the argument, an endeavour aided more by succinct reference to legal and...
Words: 1734 - Pages: 7
...the language’ of evidence, you need to begin to develop a critical attitude towards the law so that you can write good answers to essay questions in the examination. But it’s impossible to adopt a critical attitude if you have no opinion about what the objectives of the law should be, and so this chapter introduces you to that topic too. Learning outcomes By the end of this chapter and the relevant readings you should be able to: explain what is meant by ‘relevance’, ‘weight’ and ‘admissibility’ present arguments defending or attacking the relevance of a given item of evidence explain what is meant by the following major technical terms used in evidence law: the best evidence rule, circumstantial and direct evidence, collateral facts, documentary evidence, facts in issue, original evidence, real evidence, hearsay, the best evidence rule and the voir dire describe two important characteristics of evidence law: its limited application, and its mixture of principles, rules and discretions explain the functions of judge and jury in a Crown Court trial describe the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights on evidence law outline the way in which modern evidence law has developed explain the main theories about the current...
Words: 4210 - Pages: 17
...the principles of the duty to act and the duty of care consistently. This provides reasonable enough argument that the English criminal law is indeed in need of reform in order to tackle its inadequacies, promoting the rule of law. Two arguments faced towards criminalising omissions: the social responsibility argument and the causation argument . The social responsibility argument is built upon the collective good, duty to help those in need, the idea that the law should reflect on moral duties as citizens and failure to conform will result in punishment. While, the causation argument is built around claims that an offender that fails to act is deserving of punishment because the harm came about at the result of his or her omission...
Words: 301 - Pages: 2
...using rhetoric and how to use the different argument tools such as ethos, logos and pathos to argue. Heinrich first began with a changed life when John Quincy Adams introduced him to rhetoric. After being introduced to rhetoric Heinrich saw rhetoric as a function of argument without anger. In terms of rhetorical strategy he defines seduction as manipulation which leads to consensus. According to Heinrich, a good tool for determining the outcome of an argument, is to not try to outscore your opponent, but try to instead get your way. In order to succeed that particular tool, you must have a personal goal in what you would want...
Words: 475 - Pages: 2
...Study Guide: Lesson 4 A Little Logic Lesson Overview Logic is the primary tool or methodology in studying philosophy. Philosophy is about analyzing and constructing arguments and a good understanding of the basics of logical reasoning is essential in performing that task. The next 3 lessons will focus on logic and analyzing arguments. In this lesson, you will first be introduced to the laws of logic. These are the first principles for all reasoning. We will then discuss the specialized terminology we use in logic. Finally, we will examine 2 major kinds of logical reasoning: deductive and inductive. We will consider different forms of arguments under each and discuss how to evaluate these arguments. Take note that a large part of this lesson is about learning the terminology for logic. Tasks Read and take notes from chapter 5 of Philosophy: Critically Thinking about Foundational Beliefs, “A Little Logic.” As you read, make sure you understand the following points and questions: * Why are the laws of logic foundational? * The Law of Logic makes discourse possible. If they are not recognized as true, than nothing we claim makes any sense. Therefore, it is important to have a firm grasp of these laws. * List and explain the 3 laws of logic. 1. Noncontradiction – “Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Expressed symbolically: ~ (P•~P).² It reads, “It is not the case that there can be both P and non-P”. 2....
Words: 1412 - Pages: 6
...Generally, critical thinking involves both problem solving and reasoning. * Specifically, critical thinking includes the ability to : i) Make observations ii) Be curious, asking relevant questions and finding the resources you need iii) Challenge and examine beliefs, assumptions, and opinions against facts iv) Recognize and define problems * Assess the validity of statements and arguments Reason as a Way of Knowing * Deductive reasoning * Inductive reasoning * Logical fallacies * Informal reasoning “All generalizations are false – including this one” Henry David Thoreau, 1817 – 62 “Logic (n) is the art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.” Ambrose Bierce, 1842 – 1914 Deductive Reasoning * Any from of reasoning that moves from the general to the specific. * In deductive reasoning, an argument is made based on two facts, or premises. If the premises are true, then it should follow that the conclusion of the argument must also be true Politicians * “High taxes are putting people out of work (general premise). Tax cuts are a better policy (premise 2). Tax cuts will give people jobs (reason)” “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.” Spock, STAR TREK Deductive Reasoning * Deduction is the process of reasoning from two general premises, or things that are known, to a specific conclusion. These three parts...
Words: 560 - Pages: 3
...Locke’s argument against innate ideas. In Locke’s ‘An Essay Concerning Human Understanding’, he argues for his view of empiricism, concerning the origin of ideas. A conflicting position for this subject is rationalism. According to rationalists, ideas are innate. However, Locke was an empiricist and believed that ideas came from experience. In this essay I aim to explore Locke’s position on the formation of ideas and consider how his arguments may be criticised or indeed supported. According to Locke, an idea is “the object of the understanding when a man thinks” (I.i.8). In his ‘Essay’, Locke argues against the notion that ideas are innate in humans. He argued that ideas were formed from sensory experience rather than being innate. By innate, we mean that we were born with the ideas. Locke mentions the argument for innate ideas being that there are universally accepted ideas, so they must be already present in people when they are born. In the ‘Essay’, Locke said that the existence of innate ideas could be disproved if another way was found in which all mankind could come to agree on a certain truth. I think there is a weakness in this argument. In order for his point to be relevant, he would need to find this truth that is universally accepted and prove that it was born from experience. Therefore, the argument that innate ideas are responsible for universal truths is the best explanation that can be given. Although Locke’s argument does not have a lot to justify it...
Words: 1608 - Pages: 7