LOCATING SCHOLARLY INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET Research Paper

LOCATING SCHOLARLY INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET - Research Paper Example of credibility lingering in mind, it is important to explore some of the possible criteria that can be used to qualify internet information as credible. Information credibility is heavily dependent a number of factors such as currency and citation presence among others. Credible information should be up to date thereby reflecting relevance and conformity with the changing times. Current information concurs with issues happening in the modern world. Research on different subjects is always being carried out implying that some of the earlier conclusions may be disputed. This is especially with technological advancements thereby creating greater room for improvements. For example, information on diseases is prone to change since as time advances there is likelihood of new discoveries. This implies that relying on relatively old sources may give information with omissions of advancements made. As such, conclusions drawn from such information may be deemed incomplete hence cannot be considered credible. Secondly, presence of source citations symbolizes information credibility since it shows that the topic in play has been researched upon. However, it is also important to check citations used to ensure that they are from trustworthy sources. In relation to citations, sources being used should also use credible references. This implies that use of information sources is seemingly interdependent. Additionally, information on sources should correspond to information on external trustworthy sources and conclusions. For example, internet users should ensure that a source corresponds to known facts about a given subject. Therefore, citation presence may be used to determine information credibility. Internet users can determine information credibility by concentrating on the website’s outlook. Scholarly sites have a consistent page design that is attractive yet maintaining professionalism. This implies that there is no irrelevant information on scholarly sources such as

The Impact of Disruption to Sleep Patterns in the Intensive Care Unit Essay

The Impact of Disruption to Sleep Patterns in the Intensive Care Unit - Essay Example One indisputable fact is that lack of sleep affects the health and progress of the healing for patients in the ICU. A study on the impacts of sleep disruptions in the ICU indicated that the nature of sleep patterns in a nursing environment has some significant associations with the mortality rates (Friese, 2007, p. 1210). Nursing institutions that promote good sleep habits for patients in the ICU have also shown significant reductions in the levels of mortality. On the other hand, nursing institutions that do not have any structures for promoting good sleep habits were also associated with high mortality rates. The findings of this study were consistent with other findings that showed a positive association between the states of health of patients in the ICU with the number of hours of sleep that the patients managed to get (Friese, 2007, p. 1212). For instance, these findings showed that most of the patients who managed to get uninterrupted sleep were able to respond faster and bett er to treatment than those who were occasionally interrupted by the nurses or other factors. Discussion Various studies have developed an association between the rate of patients’ readmission to the nursing homes and the disruptions to the sleep patterns (Patel, Chipman, Carlin & Shade, 2008, p. 309; Patel, Chipman, Carlin & Shade, 2008, p. 310). Some of the inferences drawn from this study are that the sleep patterns of the patients in the ICU promoted the natural defences of the body, thus, allowing the patients to develop long-terms health stability. These associations are also consistent with other studies that have established the existence of positive influences between long term health balances of individuals to the quality of sleep that they receive (Eliassen & Hopstock, 2011, p. 140). Opinions of some nursing experts suggest that the promotion of environmental conditions that support quality sleeping patterns is more sustainable than interventions that involve the us e of sleep inducers. Patients who are occasionally subjected to sleep inducers often lapse into delirium after a short while and may require stronger inducers in order for them to acquire the same amount of sleep (Patel, Chipman, Carlin & Shade, 2008, p. 310). Some of the studies have established a connection between the impairment of the body’s ability to combat infections (Eliassen & Hopstock, 2011; Friese, 2007). Quality sleep strengthens the immune system and provides the enabling environment for the functioning of the defensive mechanism of the body. Poor sleeping patterns are usually associated with prolonged healing and negative responses to the treatment processes. Patients who fail to get sufficient sleep are also likely to suffer from hallucinations and unstable psychological states. This is because the state of a patient’s mental balance is affected by the kind of pressure and strain that occur during the period of wakefulness. In order for a patient in the ICU to develop the necessary defences, it is necessary to develop a stable sleeping schedule with sufficient time that would allow for the release of the strain and pressure that operate at the mental level. The role of nurses in mitigating the adverse

Debate on the Ethics of Gun Control

Debate on the Ethics of Gun Control The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed [16]. The Founding Fathers of the United States believed that the bearing of arms was essential to the character and dignity of a free people [3]. For this reason, they wrote a Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which the last part reads the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, it is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by the founding fathers. These rights define Americans as a free and independent people. The phrase Gun Control means different things to different people, and opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. Gun control is defined as polices enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firea rms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and so on [4]. This coincides with Kants belief, that the morality of an act depends on a persons intentions (a good will), not the results of the act [1]. The problem here is the results of the act of controlling our individuals rights to bear arms is not always in everyones self interest. Two discrete ethical beliefs are at war in the gun control debate, social utilitarianism and individual rights. These two philosophies are incompatible and, further, that is impossible to secure or validate unlimited individual rights of gun owners on utilitarian grounds. The government uses utilitarianism to dismantle the individual rights of gun owners. Although, it is legal in the Constitution to regulate guns, it is still unethical. There is often debate over the term, well regulated in the opening line of the Second Amendment. Many would interpret this phrase to be controlled by the government or to be ruled. However, there are other meanings to the word regulated that collectivists sometimes fail to acknowledge. In a different context it can be interpreted as properly operating. It has also been debated that, well regulated militia has a meaning at that time in the nature of a properly function militia which would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped militia [17]. The Supreme Court stated that It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved militia force or reserve militia of the United States and well as the States [17]. Although there are many interpretations of the term well regulated, most agree a properly functioning militia is necessary to the security of a free state. All should agree that reducing violent crime is a good thing. Gun advocates will acknowledge that guns act as an enabler for criminals and play a role in most violent crime. This statement is generally the basis of the anti-gun movement. They argue that since guns are commonly used in the commission of crimes and since guns are inherently dangerous because of their primary function (the primary function being the destruction of the target), that guns should therefore be outlawed. Many gun advocates, such as Gary Kleck, a Flordia State University criminology professor could counter this by saying that law-abiding citizens using firearms protect themselves from criminals 2.4 million times ever year [6]. Klecks findings are based on a 1993 random survey of approximately 6,000 households. Since the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimate that approximately 1.1 million violent crimes were committed with guns in 1992 [6], one could argue that there is a correlation between increased gun owne rship and a reduced crime rate. From a legal standpoint, class-action lawsuits have become more prevalent, some lawsuits have been brought against gun manufacturers on the grounds that they produce and distribute a dangerous product [6]. During the case of US v. Emerson, a federal appeals judge, Judge William Garwood upheld under the Second Amendment the right to own/possess a firearm even for a man who was under a restraining order issued at his estranged wifes request [2]. This decision overturned a law in Texas that made it illegal for someone with a restraining order to own/possess a gun. This law was overturned because it was decided that the Second Amendment indeed said that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, not just the state. Any other argument regarding the legal rights of the individual under the Second Amendment seemed unnecessary, since the rights of the individual were upheld. This is only one example where the individual rights were upheld, but in most cases utilitarianism prevails. T his decision was overturned on the district level and only involved the state of Texas, only the Supreme Court can decided what is or is not constitutional. Both opposing viewpoints agree that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation, but a struggle still exists whether or not it is the unlimited right to keep and bear arms for every individual. Most liberal politicians hold the utilitarian position, or collective rights position, that gives states the rights to maintain armed militias. Before Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), Nine of the eleven U.S. districts courts have long held a strong Collective Rights view that the Second Amendment covers only one matter: empowerment of government to maintain an armed militia to defend the U.S. as a whole [18]. These courts have contended that the Second Amendment doesnt extend to individual ownership of guns [18]. On March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to overturn the restrictive gun laws of Washington D.C., at the time which outlaws ownership of handguns, except for police officers. I t was concluded that the Second Amendment protects from state infringement of the individual right to own/possess a gun. This was the first time on a constitutional level that an individuals unlimited right to bear arms was recognized. This Supreme Court decision can be directly related to Rawlss belief that, a loss of freedom for some is not made right by a greater sum of satisfactions enjoyed by many, [1]. Moving away from the legal argument to the philosophical one, the first question to be posed is, is an act of self-defense from loss of life or limb morally justified? Few would answer this question with anything other than yes. The next question that arises is, Is it morally okay for everyone to possess a firearm for use in self-defense? The answer to this, without allowing for other uses of firearms must be yes. To defend ones self is instinctually right, and is rationally allowable as well. If threatened with a gun, it is difficult to effectively defend ones self with anything other than a gun [15]. Thus for self-defense, guns meet the requirement. The question then becomes, What type of guns should be allowed? If the purpose of the gun is to protect ones self, and ones family, then the answer must be, Whatever type of gun is needed to defend ones self and ones family. From this the question arises, From whom am I to defend myself? The answer of the Founding Father would have been , From both foreign and domestic tyranny. A gun that would protect from both foreign and domestic tyranny seems to be a tall order. Protection from domestic tyranny seems simple enough, since most cases of domestic tyranny are simply crimes committed against others by common thugs with less than state-of-the-art weaponry. Thomas Jefferson, however, saw a different domestic tyranny to defend against. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government [11]. This reasoning demands that the citizen be equipped with arms that could reasonably be used to defend ones home against governmental invasion. The weapons that would be needed are the so-called assault weapons that the anti-gun lobby is trying to ban. These weapons are those that can carry high-capacity magazines (10 rounds or more of ammunition) and those that have such military-style features such as semi-automatic actions, flash suppressors, and muzzle brakes. Some would argue that these guns encourage illegal use and enable mass-shootings, but the fact is that the presence of even fully automatic machine guns in homes is not correlated with a high murder rate. Take for instance Switzerland, where every household is required to have a fully automatic weapon. Switzerlands rate of homicides by gun is lower than Canadas, despite the fact that Canada has almost a complete ban on all firearms [14]. Since statistics have entered the debate, the Utilitarian view seems to inevitably pop up. So, from a utilitarian standpoint, should gun control laws become more stringent? Should guns be banned altogether? If the answers are based on what would happen (or what would probably happen) if guns were banned, let us look at statistics from countries where such bans have been effected. In Australia, a law was passed that forced gun owners to turn over 640,381 private guns. The results after one year are astonishing, homicides increased by 3.2%, assaults increased by 8.6%, and armed robberies increased by 44%. These statistics seem to show a correlation between fewer legal guns and an increasing crime rate [12]. This conclusion is further supported by statistics from other countries. In Israel, where teachers carry guns, where one in five citizens is in the military, and where the gun ownership rate is higher than the U.S., the murder rate is 40% lower than Canadas. New Zealanders own as many guns as Americans, and yet their murder rate is lower than Australias [13]. Considering these statistics, the conclusion from a Utilitarian perspective is that gun ownership is ethically proper. The requirement of the greatest good for the greatest number seems to demand that whatever method brought about the lowest crime rate would be best, as long as that method does not infringe upon the rights of those involved, thus making them unhappy, and reducing the total good. Since gun control seems to lower the total good, and guns in the hands of the citizenry seems to increase the total good, the correct action is to allow guns. Lets take look at the other side of the debate. Elijah Weber, a journalist for Everyday Ethics, likes uses the harm principle when describing gun control. According to the harm principle, we can only ban something if it is harmful to others. Clearly, gun ownership leads to harmful effects due to gun related violence. Weber states, More than any statistical analysis can demonstrate, it should be obvious that a person can cause more harm with a gun than without one [10]. This is true, guns do cause harm when used for their intended purpose. The gun is only tool. Its use depends entirely on the character and purpose of the one who wields it. A tool is an instrumentality for the accomplishment of a particular goal. My car permits me to get to and from work; my computer allows me to communicate to the world without leaving my room. Certain guns are customized for hunting of animals, others are designed for one major purpose only: destruction of human beings. One of the most common uses of this certain tool is in self defense. Some number of gun owners certainly hope that life will put them in a situation where they can use their weapon for its intended purpose, but a much smaller number has actually sought these circumstances [9]. Our Second Amendment protects not the right to life, or self determination, but the right to keep and bear arms. The paradox is firearms are fact only tools; their use depends on the purpose and character of the user [8]. As tools, they can be, and are, used for both good and evil. This paradox, or tension, that we cannot protect what we value in man except through of the physical means of its ex pression, yet as tools their value is completely neutral or ambiguous [8]. This is much of the cause of the debate; we contemplate the value of our individual rights, and the extent to which it is permissible to restrict those rights. John Wallace states that empowerment of the individual should lead to more responsible use of the tool than denial and willful ignorance will [9]. Thus we are lead to believe by granting us our individual right to bear arms should lead to more ethically proper use of these tools. In sum, the so called harm principle has no bearing on the debate over gun control, guns are merely tools and how we use them depends on the character behind the trigger. Crime is everywhere, some people like to believe that they live, work, and travel only in special crime-free zones. The truth is crime can occur anywhere at any time, criminals do not play by anyone rules. Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the polices, not only are you wrong, since the courts universally rule that the police have no legal obligation to do so [8], but you face another question. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours when you will assume no responsibility yourself? We often claim to be shocked that violent criminals possess no respect for our property, our liberty, or our lives. Yet why should criminals respect our property or lives, when we ourselves do not value them highly enough to assume the responsibility to defend them. I believe that one who values life and takes seriousness his or her responsibilities will possess and cultivate the means of properl y fighting back. The government and anti-gun lobbyists like to use the utilitarian perspective, greatest good for the greatest number. There is a problem with this approach, why should our right to defend ourselves depend on statistics such as crime rate. Should the legal right to defend your life be a function of the homicide or violent crime rate, so that the right comes into and goes out of existence as the rate rises or falls below a certain point? Since crime can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime, thus, a government that arrogates to itself the power to judge, in the first instance your need or eligibility to own a gun can only believe that your life is not really worth protecting, at least until such time as you present strong proof to the contrary [8]. This utilitarian approach doesnt respect that each individual has an inalienable right to life and liberty and a moral right and obligation to defend oneself. During an interview with David Morabito, a New York lawyer I was able to pose some answers to interesting questions. First off, New York has much stricter laws pertaining to gun control than that of Michigan. Davids stance on gun control was that, Gun controls laws are in place for a certain reason, the reason is to protect society from violent crime, thus by keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. He agreed with me that using a handgun is a worthy way to protect yourself and/or your familys life, but there are other means available today that do not cause permanent injury. He recalled New Yorks legalization of self defense sprays, that they are much safer means of self protection. I also asked him how he felt about the strict licensing laws of his state and the banning of classes of guns. David stated, That strict licensing laws help keep firearms from getting into the wrong hands. As for banning of classes of guns, he used the AR, or assault rifle, as an example, No needs a fu lly automatic high capacity rifle to defend them from a common thug. He added, These weapons seem to only add to the problem of violent crime. In closing, David believed that handgun laws should be stricter, because he believes that they statically help reduce violent crime. Mr. Morabito obviously not a huge gun advocate, could be right, statistics do support him. For example, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Director of Center for Injury Control at Emory University, concluded that guns in the home were 43 times more likely to kill a family member or acquaintance than an intruder, suggesting that it is criminally irresponsible to keep a gun in the home for self defense [8]. Kellerman believes his studies strongly show that the risks of having a gun in the home substantially outweigh the benefits, [8]. Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck has his own research that counters Kellerman. Based on his studies in 1993, Klecks research suggests that guns are used far more often to deter than to commit a crime. 1 in 6 of Klecks respondents who had used a gun in self defense was almost certain that a life would have been lost without the gun, implying that guns save about 400,000 lives each year [6]. Kleck points out that even if one-tenth of those people were right, the number of lives saved by guns would still exceed the 38,000 killed by gun s [6]. Asserting that Klecks statistics justify owning or carrying a firearm commits the same fault that asserting that Kellermans statistics justify not owning or banning firearms. Both Kellerman and Kleck treat the gun as an agent; an agent with the power to effect results. Guns are just tools that serve a purpose and we the people are the agents. Thus, statistics are only numbers that will change year to year and place to place. Numbers cannot be the sole justification whether gun control needs to be more stringent or lenient. Bart Marlette, a Clinton Township police officer, was asked questions similar to those asked of David Morabito during a recent phone interview. When asked what his stance was on gun control, Officer Marlette replied, I am neutral on the subject, gun control laws in Michigan could be always be improved but there is not necessity to change them at this point in time. Officer Marlette also agreed that a handgun is a worthy way to protect yourself and your family. He does not believe that existence of licensing laws, instant check procedures and the banning of certain guns redefine peaceable citizens as criminals as some may argue. When asked if proper CPL (Concealed Pistol License) holders should be allowed to carry on college campuses, Officer Marlette supported the idea. He stated, As long as they are properly trained and responsible, he did not see the harm. He stated he sometimes worries about his son attending Wayne State University in Detroit because of the violent crime there. Th e Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 made it a crime to possess a gun in a school zone, defined as the school grounds and the area 1,000 feet in the radius of those grounds [8]. The prominent principle of the gun-free school zone act is that laws can keep guns out of schools, but law does not have the power to prevent crime. Any person that believes the gun-free school zone act to be a rational law or good idea merely reflects his failure to understand the absurdity of the laws founding principle [8]. I could not agree more, no law has the power to prevent crime, or in any case control conduct. For this law to work, you would have to expect that a person who is willing to commit a violent crime such as rape or murder will be prevented because he or she will respect the law, not bring a gun to school, and feels the laws proscribing punishment for those crimes have no hold upon him or her. The problem is such a law can never work, because choice and freedom cannot be eliminated, and wit hout responsibility, law has no force but brute force [8]. The gun-free school zone act has become a tool for satisfying emotion need for safety of our children. Utilitarianism is the opposite side of Kants theory of ethics. Kants theory is based on human reason; utilitarianism is based on reason and experience [1]. The problem with utilitarianism is that the greatest happiness for the majority might be at the cost of the misery for a few. Thus, doing what promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number might not be always the right thing to do. Utilitarianism can best be explained in the case: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. The city of Omelas is presented as a perfect utopia. It has everything you could ever want or desire, but it comes at a cost. All the people of Omelas know that their happiness, their perfect utopia depends on one child. This child has to be locked in a small room in the basement at all times. Their entire happiness depends solely on this one childs misery. If this child were to be let out of this room, all that makes the city of Omelas would be destroyed. In sum, utilitarianism demonstrates that there is no way to make anyone better off without making someone worse off [1]. Your individual right can be directly related to this one child. The utilitarian ethics is naturally inconsistent with the ethics of individual rights. Now, if individuals are permitted to have certain rights only so long as their exercise of those rights is perceived to serve or bring the greatest good of the greatest number, they in fact have no inalienable or individual rights [8]. Thus, when gun advocates such as Gary Kleck, defend the right to own and carry guns with utilitarian arguments, there are in no sense defending individual right. Instead, they are just trying to convince the greatest number to permit them to exercise such a freedom as the right to bear arms. Under an individual right ethics, individuals may not be treated solely as a means to an end but must also be treated, in Kants words, as ends in themselves [1]. Everyone possesses their own free will and I believe freedom is what America was founded upon. Therefore, it is unethical to restrict ones right to bear arms on the account that another man that has abused his freedom. U tilitarianism justifies using some merely as a means to the fulfillment of others ends, so long as those who are to be sacrificed are not too numerous [8]. This is saying that no individual has the right to life, and his rights are being thrown aside in pursuit of the greatest good. Nothing changes that individuals have the fundamental right to carry and own arms, and everyone has the right to life. I will end with this, You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Free Hamlet Essays: Little Control in Hamlet :: Shakespeare Hamlet Essays

Little Control in Hamlet Even though Hamlet is a prince, he has little control over the course of his life. In that time many things were decided for the princes and princesses such as their education and even who they married. This was more or less the normal way of life for a child of the monarch. But in the case of Hamlet, any of the control he thought he had, fell away with the murder of his father. Having his father, the king, be killed by his own brother, sent Hamlet into a state of feeling helpless and out of control. Cooped up in a palace with no real outlet, he tries to control at least one aspect of his life. Hamlet deliberately toys with Ophelia's emotions in order to feel in control of something since he cannot control the situation with Claudius. So much is going on in Hamlet's life, his father's death, his uncle's rise to power, Fortinbras at the ready to strike and invade Denmark, and his relationship with Ophelia, that he is feels helpless and not even in control of his own life. He feels trapped and confined by his situation and therefor not in control of it. Hamlet feels as if the situations that he is in are controlling him rather than he being able to control them and he feels trapped by them, particularly the situation with Claudius. "Hamlet: †¦What have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison hither? Guildenstern: Prison my lord? Hamlet: Denmark's a prison" (Act 2, Scene 2, verses 242-247) Hamlet even goes so far as to call Denmark a prison because he feels so trapped in his life there and feels so helpless to change his situation, as if he were locked into it like a prison cell. Another interpretation could be that Hamlet is melancholy and indecisive, and is not trying to control anyone. He is trying only to take revenge on Claudius, at which he fails for lack of an opportune time. "Hamlet: Now might I do it pat, now'a is a-praying, And now I do it. And so'a goes to heaven. And so I am revenged†¦But in our circumstance and course of thought, 'Tis heavy with him; and then I am revenged, To take him in the purging of his of his soul†¦No.

Economies Of Scale Scope Essay

Economies of Scope: An economic theory stating that the average total cost of production decreases as a result of increasing the number of different goods produced. For example, McDonalds can produce both hamburgers and French fries at a lower average cost than what it would cost two separate firms to produce the same goods. This is because McDonalds hamburgers and French fries share the use of food storage, preparation facilities, and so forth during production. Another example is a company such as Proctor & Gamble, which produces hundreds of products from razors to toothpaste. They can afford to hire expensive graphic designers and marketing experts who will use their skills across the product lines. Because the costs are spread out, this lowers the average total cost of production for each product. Economies of scale are the cost advantages that a business can exploit by expanding their scale of production. The effect of economies of scale is to reduce the average (unit) costs of production. Here are some examples of how economies of scale work: Technical economies of scale: Large-scale businesses can afford to invest in expensive and specialist capital machinery. For example, a supermarket chain such as Tesco or Sainsbury’s can invest in technology that improves stock control. It might not, however, be viable or cost-efficient for a small corner shop to buy this technology. Specialisation of the workforce Larger businesses split complex production processes into separate tasks to boost productivity. By specialising in certain tasks or processes, the workforce is able to produce more output in the same time.

Evan 101 Study Guide 5

Exam 5 Study Guide All questions will be taken from the text Evangelism Is†¦ by Earley and Wheeler. †¢ Be able to identify the following verses as they are written in your textbook and have an understanding of Dr. Earley’s and Dr. Wheeler’s teachings on these verses: †¢ John 1:14 (ch. 22) †¢ Acts 1:8 (ch. 22) †¢ Proverbs 11:30 (ch. 23) †¢ John 13:35 (ch. 24) †¢ John 2:1–10 (ch. 25) †¢ Luke 19 (ch. 25) †¢ John 6:1–14 (ch. 25) †¢ Matthew 25:38–40 (ch. 27) Chapter 22 †¢ According to Dr. Earley, the United States has shifted from a Christian nation to a _________________________ nation. Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ Jim Peterson defines our â€Å"secularized society† as ___________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ According to Dr. Earley, the â€Å"peanut butter and jelly approach† to evangelism requires both proclamation and ______________. (Be able to fill in the b lank. ) †¢ Proclamation Evangelism is primarily for who? †¢ According to Dr. Earley, is evangelism an event? Chapter 23 †¢ According to Dr. Earley, you do not need to win lost people to _______________ (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ According to Dr.Earley, if we are to be truly effective evangelists, we must love people like ________________ and see them like _______________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ According to Dr. Earley, many people simply must feel like they ________ before they can __________. (Be able to fill in the blanks. ) †¢ According to Chapter 23, ___________ out of 10 unchurched adults would accept an invitation to church if invited. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ According to Dr. Earley, what are the 3 victories you win with unbelievers and in what order do they occur? Chapter 24 Dr. Earley compares evangelism with lost people to building ____________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ According to Dr. Whe eler, who cites Claude King and Carolyn Thompson’s work, all believers have _______ concentric circles of concern in evangelism. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ Know the concentric circles of concern in evangelism in order. †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, evangelism is lived out through ________________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, what is the culmination of evangelism? Chapter 25 †¢ According to Dr.Wheeler, evangelism is hanging out ____________________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, Jesus exhibits the characteristics of â€Å"hanging out† evangelism in John 2:1-10 when he attended a ______________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ Dr Wheeler encourages believers to be fully present by continuously looking for ________________________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ Dr. Wheeler quotes this verse, â€Å"For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish.Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this? † as an example of divine opportunity. The person given this opportunity was _____________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) Chapter 26 †¢ Dr. Wheeler states that â€Å"incarnational living’ and following the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18–20) is more about ______________ than coming. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, incarnational living is an expression of our new ____________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ Citing Steve Sjorgen in his book, Conspiracy of Kindness, Dr.Wheeler notes that the proper way to view and respond to lost people is to _____________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ Incarnational living involves what? †¢ Dr. Wheeler quotes Albert L. Meiburg, who states that _______ is the trigger which activat es God's call to minister if we have the heart to hear and respond. † (Be able to fill in the blank. ) Chapter 27 †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, by putting ministry into action, evangelism becomes a natural _________. (Be able to fill in the blank. ) †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, evangelism is opening our eyes to ___________. (Be able to fill in the blank. Chapter 28 †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, evangelism is knowing the difference between _____________________. (Be able to fill in the blanks. ) †¢ Dr. Wheeler quotes Jerry Pipes concerning the art of listening. What are the levels of listening? †¢ What is One-up Listening? †¢ What is Barney Fife Listening? †¢ What is Dr. Phil Listening? †¢ What is I-Pod Listening? †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, what are effective strategies in listening? †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, true evangelism is expressed with the whole being, both ____________ and ______________. (Be able to fill in the blank s. Chapter 29 †¢ Dr. Wheeler cites John 11:35 when Jesus wept as an example of his empathy in action. Who was Jesus crying over? †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, is empathetic living relating to the physical pain of hurting people. †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, part of living an empathetic life is learning to live with your personal struggles and shortcomings or ____________. (Be able to fill in the blanks. ) †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, what are examples of empathetic living? †¢ According to Dr. Wheeler, 1 origin of the word empathy means ______________. (Be able to fill in the blank. )