Q 10.1 2. A form of inductive reasoning in which we reason from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs. 10.2 1. No. 2. The minimum requirement of consistency says that a theory should be both internally and externally consistent. A theory that is internally consistent is consistent with itself—it’s free of contradictions. A theory that is externally consistent is consistent with the data it’s supposed to explain—it fully accounts for the phenomenon to be explained 3. The best theory is the eligible theory that meets the criteria of adequacy better than any of its competitors. 10.3 1. State of affairs: Most students dropping Professor Graham’s class. Explanation: He is so boring. 2. State of affairs: The endangered status of the spotted owl. Explanation: The powerful influence of the logging industry. 3. State of affairs: James saying that he saw a ghost in his bedroom. Explanation: He drinks too much and has a vivid imagination. 4. State of affairs: Crimes committed by high school students are increasing. Explanation: School districts refuse to mandate harsh punishments for criminal acts. 10.4 1. Plausible: By night, people are killing cows and removing their organs for sale to traditional medical practitioners (some of whom use dried animal organs as medicine). The thieves are careful to walk only on the tall grass so as not to leave footprints. They kill the cows by hitting them in the head with a mallet. Not very plausible: Space aliens are mutilating cows to practice techniques they intend to use on humans. 2. Plausible: Jack’s house was burglarized. Not plausible: Jack’s dog went on a rampage. 3. Plausible: Someone—perhaps a roommate or friendly prankster—moved the furniture. Not plausible: Gravitational forces moved the furniture.