Wells’ novel *The Time Machine* describes a significant problem: class divisions. This community problem is presented as an outrageous one because it transforms people into inhumane beings with distinguished biological differences rooted in social classes (Wells 2017). The author demonstrates that the issue involves and impacts all the people who could be seen as the ancestors of the gloomy future society (Wells 2017). However, the London government of the book does nothing to solve the problem.

The government must provide multiple initiatives to fix the problem. However, one of the most effective decisions for closing the class gap is establishing the minimum wage and welfare options for people incapable of work. The advantage of the possibility lies in the fact that its costs could fit into the state budget, although for the Victorian society of the book, it might be too complex and lengthy to implement. Furthermore, the government might provide civil rights protection, a straightforward law that costs nothing, yet it might not be easy to force on all levels. The time traveler would support the options since they break class limitations, but the other characters of London would find them unacceptable due to their habitual attitude towards social division.

I recommend beginning with the appropriate minimum wages to solve the problem. This solution is the best because it will provide more opportunities and enhance the well-being of the working class and the poor. The advantage of the decision lies in the speed of the positive effect that it might have. However, since employers would be dissatisfied with paying more, it might be complex to implement it for the responsible person, Queen Victoria. Finally, the policy does not violate any of the rights of the people and creatures of future Earth.

Although Queen Victoria approved the minimum wages and welfare, I believe that most elite communities would oppose the policy, while the working class would appreciate it. To gain the support of the communities in the story, the government should explain the advantages of fewer class distinctions, which include more economically-confident consumers. The main character is essential in supporting the policy with his scholarly influence. However, his colleagues with similar impacts might oppose it. For the policy to work, the government needs to issue a law about minimal wages enforced by the Queen and allocating a part of taxes to welfare.

### Reference

Wells, Herbert George. *The time machine*. Oxford University Press, 2017.

## Aspects Of Ethics Of Duty And Justice

Primarily, according to the author, the most convincing, objective, and reliable criticism of male moral theorizing is the concept that focuses on the ethics of duty and justice. Thus, Baier (7) believes that men are more likely to make decisions based on the systems of fairness, honesty, and decency. Moreover, the researchers note that boys and adult men tend to focus on society’s laws, norms mainly, and standards without going beyond what is permitted, and their morality is instead based on abstract concepts (Vinney). As practice shows, men show justice in any situation, including in various conflicts. Consequently, he believes everyone should get what he deserves while respecting him as a person and without violating his inalienable rights.

In addition, it should be noted that the student believes that the potential response by a “male moral theorist” could be expressed as follows: “Every person is a blacksmith of their happiness, and their head may serve as a hammer or an anvil.” Thus, an individual’s actions, faith, or thoughts form a particular period of life. In this case, a man is ready to endure persecution for his beliefs and take responsibility for his actions; life is a boomerang, and everything and everyone gets what they deserve. It should be emphasized that a man will probably answer what he wants and strives to live honestly, without deception, and according to conscience. For example, in fairness, most men are still honestly performing their “duties” while being among colleagues, family, or even strangers on the street, and most of them are not afraid of the unstable situation in the country or the world, nor the risk of failure.

### Works Cited

Baier, Annette C. *Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics*. Harvard University Press, 1994.

Vinney, Cynthia. “The Carol Gilligan Theory and a Woman’s Sense of Self.” *Verywell Mind*, 2022.

## Probability, Sampling Distributions, And Confidence Intervals

For the random sample of 100 in table 1.0, the 95% confidence interval for the mean has a Lower bound of 29527.49 and an upper bound of 45209.49. The 90% confidence interval for the mean has a lower bound of 30807.15 and an upper bound of 43929.84, as shown in table 2.0. For the random sample of 400 in table 3.0, the 95% confidence interval for the mean has a Lower bound of 41657.62 and an upper bound of 49583.45. The 90% confidence interval for the mean has a lower bound of 42297.12 and an upper bound of 48943.95, as shown in table 4.0. The variable Age of respondent has a mean of 48.52, as shown in table 5.0.

The confidence interval from the above results shows that it is varying from sample to sample. The width of the confidence interval in a random sample of 100 is larger than that of a random sample of 400. This is because a larger sample makes statistics more reliable than smaller samples (Wang et al., 2018). With higher levels of the confidence interval, the width of the confidence interval is also large (Frankfort-Nachmias et al., 2020). From the above tables, the width of the confidence intervals at 95% is higher than those of 90%.

Confidence intervals are under-utilized because they need to be incorporated in day-to-day activities involving sampling and generalization. Confidence interval uses the sample size and the potential variation to make inferences of a given population by providing estimates of the range where the actual result lies (Naimi & Whitcomb, 2020). In this case, the confidence interval shows where the average income of the population lies at different confidence percentages. When confidence intervals are not used, there is a higher risk of making wrong inferences on the population because it is ordinarily impossible to enumerate all the items in the population (Tavares et al., 2020).

### References

Frankfort-Nachmias, C., Leon-Guerrero, A., & Davis, G. (2020). *Social statistics for a diverse society* (9th ed.).

Naimi, A., & Whitcomb, B. (2020). Can Confidence Intervals Be Interpreted? *American Journal of Epidemiology*, *189*(7), 631-633.

Tavares, D., Moura, J., Acevedo-Trejos, E., Crawford, R., Makhado, A., & Lavers, J. et al. (2020). Confidence intervals and sample size for estimating the prevalence of plastic debris in seabird nests. *Environmental Pollution*, *263*, 114394.

Wang, X., Reich, N., & Horton, N. (2018). Enriching Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Confidence Intervals: An Interactive Trivia-Based Classroom Activity. *The American Statistician*, *73*(1), 50-55. Web.

### Appendix

*Table 1.0: 95% confidence interval for a random sample of 100*

Descriptives |
||||

Statistic | Std. Error | |||

FAMILY INCOME IN CONSTANT $ | Mean | 37368.49 | 3951.685 | |

95% Confidence Interval for Mean | Lower Bound | 29527.49 | ||

Upper Bound | 45209.49 | |||

5% Trimmed Mean | 33972.88 | |||

Median | 26015.00 | |||

Variance | 1561581605.281 | |||

Std. Deviation | 39516.852 | |||

Minimum | 237 | |||

Maximum | 134817 | |||

Range | 134581 | |||

Interquartile Range | 33997 | |||

Skewness | 1.708 | .241 | ||

Kurtosis | 1.811 | .478 |

*Table 2.0: 90% confidence interval for a random sample of 100*

Descriptives |
||||

Statistic | Std. Error | |||

FAMILY INCOME IN CONSTANT $ | Mean | 37368.49 | 3951.685 | |

90% Confidence Interval for Mean | Lower Bound | 30807.15 | ||

Upper Bound | 43929.84 | |||

5% Trimmed Mean | 33972.88 | |||

Median | 26015.00 | |||

Variance | 1561581605.281 | |||

Std. Deviation | 39516.852 | |||

Minimum | 237 | |||

Maximum | 134817 | |||

Range | 134581 | |||

Interquartile Range | 33997 | |||

Skewness | 1.708 | .241 | ||

Kurtosis | 1.811 | .478 |

*Table 3.0: 95% confidence interval for a random sample of 400*

Descriptives |
||||

Statistic | Std. Error | |||

FAMILY INCOME IN CONSTANT DOLLARS | Mean | 45620.54 | 2015.799 | |

95% Confidence Interval for Mean | Lower Bound | 41657.62 | ||

Upper Bound | 49583.45 | |||

5% Trimmed Mean | 41654.67 | |||

Median | 33255.00 | |||

Variance | 1625378621.797 | |||

Std. Deviation | 40315.985 | |||

Minimum | 370 | |||

Maximum | 160742 | |||

Range | 160373 | |||

Interquartile Range | 43416 | |||

Skewness | 1.585 | .122 | ||

Kurtosis | 2.123 | .243 |

*Table 4.0: 90% confidence interval for a random sample of 400*

Descriptives |
||||

Statistic | Std. Error | |||

FAMILY INCOME IN CONSTANT DOLLARS | Mean | 45620.54 | 2015.799 | |

90% Confidence Interval for Mean | Lower Bound | 42297.12 | ||

Upper Bound | 48943.95 | |||

5% Trimmed Mean | 41654.67 | |||

Median | 33255.00 | |||

Variance | 1625378621.797 | |||

Std. Deviation | 40315.985 | |||

Minimum | 370 | |||

Maximum | 160742 | |||

Range | 160373 | |||

Interquartile Range | 43416 | |||

Skewness | 1.585 | .122 | ||

Kurtosis | 2.123 | .243 |

*Table 5.0: Mean age of respondent*

Descriptive Statistics |
||

AGE OF RESPONDENT | Valid N (listwise) | |

N | 505 | 505 |

Range | 70 | |

Minimum | 19 | |

Maximum | 89 | |

Sum | 24502 | |

Mean | 48.52 | |

Std. Deviation | 16.904 | |

Variance | 285.746 |