Please write a short(a few of sentences) and key to the point answer to each question. Each question has 3 sub questions. 

Please be accurte, and if the work the great, huge tip will be added. thanks in advance. 

1. a. Describe the difference between something being possible and something being necessary. 

b. Explain Modal Realism (the view David Lewis defended).

c. Do you agree with modal realism? Justify your view.

2. a. What does it mean to be a man or a woman according to Haslanger?

b. Explain what she calls the Commonality Problem for definitions of gender or race.

c. How does Haslanger's own account solve the commonality problem?

3.a. It is sometimes claimed that social constructionists confuse epistemology and metaphysics. Explain this worry and how it relates to social construction.

b. Do social constructionists have a good way of responding? Explain and justify your answer.

4.a. Explain Descartes' method of doubt and show how he uses it to doubt his?perceptual and mathematical beliefs.

b. Ultimately he find there is something he cannot doubt-what is it and explain how he comes to the conclusion.

c. How high are Descartes' standards for knowledge? Do you think that he is correct to have these standards or are different (or variable) standards better? Justify.

5 a. Explain Moore's proof of an external world.

b. Explain how he argues that he meets Criterion 2 for a good proof [Criterion 2 = The premises must be known to be true.]

c. Do you agree that he meets the criterion and that his proof is a good one? Justify your answer.

6. a. Explain one of Gettier's two examples.?b. How does it pose a problem for the JTB account of knowledge? Relate your answer to necessary and sufficient conditions.

7. a. Consider a case of intrinsic duplicates-Kamala and Liz. Suppose both believe P. How will an Internalist answer the following question: If Kamala is justified in her belief that P, must Liz be justified too? Why?

b. How would an Externalist answer the same question? Why?

c. Which view is superior? Support your conclusion.

8. a. What is Epistemic Contextualism and how does it solve the paradox involving the zebra and the mule?

b. Give an argument against Contextualism.

c. Give the best Contextualist response to the argument. Is the argument or response superior? Justify.

9. a. Briefly, what is epistemic oppression and how does it relates to testimony?

b. Explain Dotson's third-order epistemic oppression.

c. Are you convinced that this kind of oppression is distinctly epistemic (rather than social or political)? Justify.