Explore BrainMass

Hidden Hypothesis

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Can you help me explain this?
Should people who are uninformed and reason illogically be allowed to vote for issues and candidates that determine the course of this country? Why or why not?

PS: We are learning how to :
Explain Logic Arguments/Constructive Logical Arguments/Evaluate Logical Arguments

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 4:28 am ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview


Should people who are uninformed and reason illogically be allowed to vote for issues and candidates that determine the course of this country? Why or why not?


What we have here is 'hidden' hypothesis. The hypothesis, which is an implication of the question being positioned is this - Uninformed and logical-reasoning challenged people cannot make trustworthy decisions and choices. Now, a logic argument is one that tests the principles of evaluative reasoning. Now, there appears to be an implied bias here, the bias is that uninformed people and illogical people do ...

Solution Summary

The solution is a concise 340-word exploration of the question -

"Should people who are uninformed and reason illogically be allowed to vote for issues and candidates that determine the course of this country?"

The solution uses the logic behind a 'hidden hypothesis' to explain the many ways to approach the question and the many answers that one can arrive at with them. References are listed for expansion. A word version of the solution is attached for easy download and printing.

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Fraud Investigations Evidence

Respond to following question/statements
1. Fraud is almost always hidden because the fraudster hopes that by hiding it they will get away with it. Being that fraud is hidden it does make it harder on the fraud investigator. Fraud is usually uncovered because there is some sort of indication that there may be fraud going on. There is normally something that tips someone off that fraud may be occurring such as missing documents or extra entries in an accounting system. Because fraud is hidden the fraud investigator must follow the distinct steps in order to uncover any fraud. The steps are analyze data, create hypotheses regarding a possible fraud, test the hypotheses and refine and amend the hypotheses.

The fraud investigators only job is to collect evidence of the fraud and present the evidence. It is up to the courts to determine the quilt of the fraudster.
2. Fraud is a hidden crime. It is difficult to uncover and usually by the time it is discovered it is tough to obtain enough evidence to find a party guilty. This makes it extremely difficult for a fraud investigator. Even when a company undergoes an audit, fraudulent activity is still very difficult to uncover. It is usually subtle and because the individuals who commit fraud understand the processes and systems better than most, it can go undetected.

If an investigator has absolute documentary proof that an employee committed fraud it is important that their report sticks strictly to the facts. There should be no emotion or personal bias included in this report. It minimizes the risk that the individual could go back on the report and argue the person had bias, and it is important to present the facts and allow the organization to determine the fate of the employee. It is the same if an auditor was auditing a process, instead of putting emotion into it or personal bias, they just stick to the facts. No grey area, just black and white information
3. The principle of fraud is hidden is hard to say how it implements investigators. I would think that it goes without saying. If fraud was not hidden than there would be no need for an investigation. Seeing that it is hidden, an investigator would need to dig deep into financial records and other documentation in order to find what is needed to state if an actual fraud is in process or if there was just a mistake done in the record books. Investigators would not only have to dig through tons and tons of paperwork but also observe and interview people to see if they can catch the culprit in action. That is after all the best thing that could happen for an investigator; on the other hand the worst thing that could happen is the culprit is questioned before the investigator is ready. If that were to happen than the person that is under investigation could legal up and that would put a stop to the investigation before it can begin.

The last thing an investigator would do is place in any kind of report the quilt of a particular person. If that were to happen and it turned out that the person was innocent, than that person could sue the investigator and the company for defaming. Not only that but if the reports were to get out before the investigation was finished than the culprit would know that they are being investigated and could get themselves legal assistance. When it comes to reports, the safest thing that can be put do is the person's title and sex. The exception to that would be if there is only one person with that title or only one person of that sex working in that position. The important thing for the investigator to remember is to not let the main suspect or any suspect know that they are under investigation.

View Full Posting Details