Ethics of conclusions
Fri, Oct 2, 2026 · Week 6 · Principles of Biomedical Technology (Principles of Biomedical Science)
Today's goal: Debate how much evidence is enough to name a cause of death, and defend your threshold.
This is a model of the work you should turn in today. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Claim: A fingerprint examiner is justified in declaring an identification only when the print shows enough matching detail to rule out other sources, not when it merely looks similar at a glance.\nEvidence: A defensible identification rests on convergent detail: overall ridge-flow pattern, the count and position of specific minutiae such as ridge endings and bifurcations, and the absence of any unexplained differences between the crime-scene print and the reference print. Each of these is checked by a separate step, and a second examiner verifies the comparison independently.\nReasoning: Declaring a match too quickly, on a general resemblance alone, risks a false identification that can send the wrong person toward prosecution. Refusing to ever declare a match, on the other hand, wastes reliable evidence and leaves cases unsolved. A reasonable standard, where the corresponding detail is specific enough that no other realistic source fits and no significant difference is left unexplained, balances those two risks. That is why I would require this level of convergent, independently verified detail before declaring an identification.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A claim-evidence-reasoning paragraph, modeled on a parallel forensic case (declaring a fingerprint identification), arguing what evidence threshold justifies the conclusion, referencing convergent evidence and a risk on each side. It models the format and depth without arguing today's cause-of-death question.
- Write one defensible claim.
- Choose specific evidence that supports the claim.
- Explain the scientific rule that connects the evidence to the claim.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Post your CER to Schoology discussion or hand in the written copy before leaving.
Turn in: Worked CER on a parallel case
Go to Schoology to turn this in.
Submit one PDF. Put your first and last name in the document header. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf.
Open Schoology PDF upload helpIf you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about ethics of conclusions. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Defining convergent evidence as a standard for a conclusion.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.