1) If the reasoning from premises to a conclusion of a syllogism is accurate then it is considered valid. Can one come to a false conclusion with a valid syllogism? Why/Why not? If so, have you seen this at work?
2) A good, practical inductive argument is based on repeated, accurate observations. Taken to the extreme it might be what fallacy? Which one? Can this be avoided? How?
3) Kirby in "Thinking" suggests that "If continued through life, starbursting can produce a person who has learned to question, to probe." Can we starburst everything, all the time? Should we? Why/Why not?