PSY 715 FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS
100% SOLVED
The differences in the Farmer brothers (i.e. one a Ph.D. and the other a hardened,
career criminal) provide which cases for a "nature" explanation in the "nature vs.
nurture" argument?
a. James was born good, Tommy was born bad
b. Tommy was good, but could not live up to James' example which led him to a life of
crime
c. Tommy was born "acquisitive" and wanted to own things
d. Tommy saw that stealing was easy and therefore couldn't stop - ANSWER Clearly "a"
is a totally nature explanation as Tommy was "born bad". Also, nature would suggest
that option "c" also includes "born" so both "a" and "c" is arguably the best answer
since both options include the word "Born" and that was my plan.
How can society protect itself from "its own lost children"? Should little children be
locked up as "tiny adults" or given treatment in secure treatment centers?
- combination
-lock up
-treatment
-drug therapy - ANSWER There is no definitive answer to this question. If I asked, "At the
time of the article ..." the best answer is arguably "B" Lock-up based on the last
paragraph of the article. If I asked about "current" thinking I would expect that we would
pick "C" Combination. Clearly we will still lock-up this dangerous children and a number
os you will be working with them is "treatment" during incarceration
Hypothesis: All Swans are White.
Observation: Black Swan.
conclusion :
-accept hypothesis
-consider alternate hypothesis - ANSWER *either answer is correct*
,The point of this article is to discuss an issue in the Philosophy of Science - how do we
"know" something? Note that either answer is "correct" as far as it goes with major
Philosophers arguing both sides. Out job is to provide our research as a "principled
argument" to convince our readers that what we believe to be true is "true" based on
the evidence we uncover through solid research procedures and designs.
The homicide rate has decreased; clearly there are less murders and less violence.
-true
-false - ANSWER Clearly the answer is "B" False. There are less murders, but that does
not mean there is less violence. In fact, the "Ambulance Theory" explains less murders
because we are able to keep more victims alive (no dead body - no homicide).
What is the "fatal conundrum" posed by the competency issue for executions?
-A sane person may become crazy after serving time on Death Row.
-A crazy person may become sane after serving time in prison with medical care.
-The state sees no obligation in evaluating people for competency more than once.
-All of the above. - ANSWER [all the above]
The point here is to describe the problem with the insanity defense - who decides and
who calls for evaluations? The state does and the state may not see the need to do an
evaluation.
Note the combination of options "A" and "C" which create the "conundrum" as we could
easily understand someone going "nuts" while sitting on Death Row and not being able
to demand that the state conduct an evaluation.
Assume it is possible to predict recidivism based on a number of demographic factors.
Clearly, these factors should be taken into account in sentencing.
-Probably do not agree
-Definitely agree
, -Probably agree - ANSWER Notice that this is an opinion question so there clearly is no
"right answer". Using demographics would start us down a slippery slope in trying to
insure fairness in our legal system.
Assume it can be shown that people below the age of 18 are less capable of controlling
their behavior. Clearly, we cannot execute children under 18.
-Definitely agree
-Probably agree
-Probably do not agree - ANSWER [no right answer, opinion]
Again an opinion question. In fact, the Supreme Court has said that we cannot execute
anyone who committed the crime before their 18ht birthday (it was 16 then 17 and now
18). This ruling is based on data showing that the brain is not fully formed before the age
of 18 and therefore the murderer cannot be held fully responsible for his crime.
At the time of the article, could a state keep a sexual offender who is "dangerous, but
not mentally ill" confined in a mental hospital after the expiration of his/her criminal
sentence?
-yes
-no
-unknown at this time - ANSWER These questions relate to the Supreme Court which
sets the laws for all of us. This is a bit of a trick question as the answer is "D" Unknown
at this time. The reason it is unknown is that the article at hand is describing the case
that was presented in December and the ruling would not come out until June. In other
words, we do NOT KNOW what the law is right now - the Supreme Court will tell us what
the law is when it rules in June.
When this case was decided, could a state keep a sexual offender who is "dangerous,
but not mentally ill" confined in a mental hospital after the expiration of his/her criminal
sentence?
-yes
-no
-It depends on the nature of the original crime
-Unknown at this time - ANSWER Now the court has ruled so we know the law. Hint, hint
100% SOLVED
The differences in the Farmer brothers (i.e. one a Ph.D. and the other a hardened,
career criminal) provide which cases for a "nature" explanation in the "nature vs.
nurture" argument?
a. James was born good, Tommy was born bad
b. Tommy was good, but could not live up to James' example which led him to a life of
crime
c. Tommy was born "acquisitive" and wanted to own things
d. Tommy saw that stealing was easy and therefore couldn't stop - ANSWER Clearly "a"
is a totally nature explanation as Tommy was "born bad". Also, nature would suggest
that option "c" also includes "born" so both "a" and "c" is arguably the best answer
since both options include the word "Born" and that was my plan.
How can society protect itself from "its own lost children"? Should little children be
locked up as "tiny adults" or given treatment in secure treatment centers?
- combination
-lock up
-treatment
-drug therapy - ANSWER There is no definitive answer to this question. If I asked, "At the
time of the article ..." the best answer is arguably "B" Lock-up based on the last
paragraph of the article. If I asked about "current" thinking I would expect that we would
pick "C" Combination. Clearly we will still lock-up this dangerous children and a number
os you will be working with them is "treatment" during incarceration
Hypothesis: All Swans are White.
Observation: Black Swan.
conclusion :
-accept hypothesis
-consider alternate hypothesis - ANSWER *either answer is correct*
,The point of this article is to discuss an issue in the Philosophy of Science - how do we
"know" something? Note that either answer is "correct" as far as it goes with major
Philosophers arguing both sides. Out job is to provide our research as a "principled
argument" to convince our readers that what we believe to be true is "true" based on
the evidence we uncover through solid research procedures and designs.
The homicide rate has decreased; clearly there are less murders and less violence.
-true
-false - ANSWER Clearly the answer is "B" False. There are less murders, but that does
not mean there is less violence. In fact, the "Ambulance Theory" explains less murders
because we are able to keep more victims alive (no dead body - no homicide).
What is the "fatal conundrum" posed by the competency issue for executions?
-A sane person may become crazy after serving time on Death Row.
-A crazy person may become sane after serving time in prison with medical care.
-The state sees no obligation in evaluating people for competency more than once.
-All of the above. - ANSWER [all the above]
The point here is to describe the problem with the insanity defense - who decides and
who calls for evaluations? The state does and the state may not see the need to do an
evaluation.
Note the combination of options "A" and "C" which create the "conundrum" as we could
easily understand someone going "nuts" while sitting on Death Row and not being able
to demand that the state conduct an evaluation.
Assume it is possible to predict recidivism based on a number of demographic factors.
Clearly, these factors should be taken into account in sentencing.
-Probably do not agree
-Definitely agree
, -Probably agree - ANSWER Notice that this is an opinion question so there clearly is no
"right answer". Using demographics would start us down a slippery slope in trying to
insure fairness in our legal system.
Assume it can be shown that people below the age of 18 are less capable of controlling
their behavior. Clearly, we cannot execute children under 18.
-Definitely agree
-Probably agree
-Probably do not agree - ANSWER [no right answer, opinion]
Again an opinion question. In fact, the Supreme Court has said that we cannot execute
anyone who committed the crime before their 18ht birthday (it was 16 then 17 and now
18). This ruling is based on data showing that the brain is not fully formed before the age
of 18 and therefore the murderer cannot be held fully responsible for his crime.
At the time of the article, could a state keep a sexual offender who is "dangerous, but
not mentally ill" confined in a mental hospital after the expiration of his/her criminal
sentence?
-yes
-no
-unknown at this time - ANSWER These questions relate to the Supreme Court which
sets the laws for all of us. This is a bit of a trick question as the answer is "D" Unknown
at this time. The reason it is unknown is that the article at hand is describing the case
that was presented in December and the ruling would not come out until June. In other
words, we do NOT KNOW what the law is right now - the Supreme Court will tell us what
the law is when it rules in June.
When this case was decided, could a state keep a sexual offender who is "dangerous,
but not mentally ill" confined in a mental hospital after the expiration of his/her criminal
sentence?
-yes
-no
-It depends on the nature of the original crime
-Unknown at this time - ANSWER Now the court has ruled so we know the law. Hint, hint
