0
I'll give you two and the theory I believe.
1. A common theory is Ergot poisoning. Ergot is a fungus that grows on wheat and rye that causes hallucinations much like those of LSD. It also causes pain from resricted circulation of blood. Pain was the main symptom of the afflicted victims. The hallucinations could account for the spectors of witches they saw. It also came at the right time. Wheat and rye are consumed over the winter when there is nothing else to eat. The afflictions began in mid to late winter.
2. There's also the guilt theory. Girls in Salem went to the reverands to pass the time hearing stories and learning white magic from the slave Tituba. Of course, that was illegal and frowned upon in Puritan socitey. Racked with guilt, the girls lied to cover up what they had done. Eventually the power and attention went to their heads. That explains why they started out blaming people who were on the very fringes of society, like Tituba and Sarah Goode, and the went on to accuse more powerful people, like the reverand Burroughs. They also would have named personal enemies. For example, Rebbecca Nurse had argued with the Putnams over land. It also explains why people who spoke out against the trials were always named. If people started to listen to them and their reasoning, the girls might be found out.
After five years of reading and thinking about the Trials, I personally agree with Laurie Carlson's theory about encephalitis. Encephalitis is a disease that affects the brain and nervous system that can cause visions and muscle spasms. That explains the fits and visions. Encephalitis also can pinch nerves, which can account for the feeling of being pinched. Salem Village is near a swamp, where mosquitoes, the main carriers of encephalitis in New England, breed. It also explains why not everyone was afflicted. It affects children more easily and not everyone affected has symptoms. The theory also gives a reason for why only Ann Putnam apologized. She was one who faked it. Everything fits. However, I do not believe that everyone had Encephalitis because it seems impossible that when in court, the girls could see the very persons on trial in their visions. Its too convient, or inconvient if you're the defendant. So, some had aggravated symptoms while others just pretended for personal gain.
What else can I help you with?
What is the job of the courts of appeals?
The job of the court of appeals is to examine and render judgements on whether a trial challenge is constitutional, valid and necessary. The court will repeal decisions or grant new trials based upon the legal argument presented to them.
Is the argument Patrick Henry said there will be no checks no real balances in this government strong?
Patrick Henry's argument about the lack of checks and balances in government reflects concerns about the potential for tyranny and the concentration of power. He emphasized that without effective mechanisms to limit governmental authority, individual liberties could be at risk. While his warning highlights valid fears about governance, critics might argue that the Constitution, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances, was designed specifically to prevent such issues. Thus, the strength of his argument depends on one's interpretation of the effectiveness of these constitutional safeguards.
What is a major difference between generalization the oversimplification were making historical claims?
A major difference between generalization and oversimplification in historical claims lies in their depth of analysis. Generalization involves drawing broader conclusions based on patterns or trends observed in specific historical contexts, while oversimplification reduces complex events or phenomena to overly simplistic statements that ignore critical nuances and variations. While generalizations can be valid and useful for understanding historical trends, oversimplifications often lead to misleading interpretations and a lack of appreciation for the complexities of history.
Is their a valid response to the british argument that the colonists like all englishmen benefited from living within the empireand should pay taxes to support?
A valid response to the British argument is that while colonists benefited from being part of the empire, they had no direct representation in Parliament and thus could not voice their concerns or influence tax decisions. This lack of representation violated the principle of "no taxation without representation," which was a fundamental grievance for many colonists. Additionally, the economic realities of colonial life, including their own contributions to the empire, suggested that the burden of taxation should be more equitably assessed. Therefore, the colonists argued that their rights as Englishmen were being infringed upon.
What makes valid historic evidence?
Valid historic evidence is characterized by its authenticity, reliability, and relevance to the context being studied. It should come from credible sources, such as primary documents, eyewitness accounts, or artifacts, and be corroborated by multiple sources to ensure accuracy. Additionally, the evidence must be critically analyzed for bias and interpreted within its historical context to provide a comprehensive understanding of the past.
Can a valid deductive argument have a false conclusion?
No, a valid deductive argument cannot have a false conclusion. If the argument is valid, it means that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If the conclusion is false, it means that the argument is not valid.
How can you tell if an argument is valid?
An argument is valid if the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. This can be determined by evaluating the logical structure of the argument.
All valid arguments are sound arguments?
No, but all sound arguments are valid arguments. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are accepted as true.
Are Valid arguments strong or weak?
A valid argument is certainly stronger than an invalid argument. but an argument can be valid and still be relatively weak. Validity and strength are not the same, although they are both good features for an argument to have.
When you are building an argument for an issue that is significant to you do you think it is more important to be valid or sound?
For an argument to be valid, it means that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity has to do with the form of the argument. If one or more of the premises are not true, that does not mean the argument isn't valid. Soundness means that the argument is valid, and all of it's premises are true. It's a little redundant to say "both valid and sound", because if your argument is sound, then it must be valid. It is important for an argument to be not just valid, but also sound, in order for it to be convincing.
Can a valid argument be weak?
Yes, a valid argument can still be weak if the premises provided are not strong or relevant enough to support the conclusion. Validity refers to the logical structure of an argument, while the strength of an argument refers to the quality and persuasiveness of the premises.
What is the difference between valid and sound in a argument?
Valid means that the argument leads to a true conclusion, given that its premises are true, but if an argument is valid that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is correct, as its premises may be wrong. A sound argument, on the other hand, in addition to being valid all of its premises are true and hence its conclusion is also true.
Can you provide an example of a valid argument?
An example of a valid argument is: "All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." This argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Are all valid arguments cogent arguments?
No, not all valid arguments are cogent. A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, while a cogent argument is a valid argument with true premises. In other words, cogent arguments are a subset of valid arguments.
A valid argument can have a false conclusion True or False?
True. - Valid arguments are deductive. - Arguments are valid if the premises lead to the conclusion without committing a fallacy. - If an argument is valid, that means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. - This means that a valid argument with a false premise can lead to a false conclusion. This is called a valid, unsound argument. - A valid, sound argument would be when, if the premises are true the conclusion must be true and the premises are true.
Is an argument valid or invalid?
An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. It is invalid if the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
What is the importance of having true premises in constructing a valid argument?
Having true premises in constructing a valid argument is important because the validity of an argument depends on the truth of its premises. If the premises are not true, then the argument is not sound and cannot be relied upon to reach a valid conclusion. In other words, true premises are essential for ensuring that an argument is logically sound and can be considered valid.
