Analysis                                                                     (Problems printing? Click here.)

Analysis, in my book, means explication of the logical structure of the arguments given on both sides of the issue. This includes distinguishing facts from opinions, breaking up big complicated arguments into smaller simpler sub-arguments, and then seeing how the various little arguments are logically related to each other. Breaking up big arguments is something you will understand a lot better when we've gone through all the different ways arguments can work and be related to each other, so I won't do much of that now, and what I will do I'll save for the end of the chapter. Argument "tactics," or how arguments can oppose to each other is something you can probably understand right now, so we'll get started on that.

Fact Mining

"Fact mining" is my term for digging through a bunch of claims and coming up with those claims that can legitimately be called facts, and those which are just the arguer's opinion. Generally, the facts are whatever claims are not reasonably in dispute. If the other side would be reasonably expected to disagree with a particular claim, then that claim shouldn't ne taken as a fact, at least not at this stage of the game. Fact mining is something you can do at the standardization stage, although at that point it's more important to get the arguments as clear as you can. It is often helpful to do a little fact mining at the analysis stage, which is why I'm mentioning it here. It is, of course, essential to do a thorough job of fact mining at the evaluation stage, which is why I will say a lot more about it when we finally discuss that stage.

Before you can begin to evaluate the various arguments in any set, you have to distinguish between things that you should reasonably take as true, at least for the moment, and things you should regard as doubtful, at least until someone has given you reason to believe one of them. The first category, things we are going to take as true for now, I will call "facts." The second category, things we're not going to take as true quite yet, I will call "claims." I've given the name "fact mining" to this process of identifying facts and distinguishing them from claims.

A very important step in rationally figuring out one's own opinion on anything is working one's way through all the claims, judgments, opinions and other verbiage to pick out those one or two things that might possibly deserve the name of "facts." Rational judgments can only be made on the basis of facts, so getting the facts straight is essential to coming to a rational conclusion. "Fact mining" is my name for digging through a collection of claims to pull out the facts. When we are working on exercises, this will mean picking out those claims made by the various arguers that seem best founded in our background knowledge and/or least controversial.

If a claim seems important to the argument, but it doesn't seem to be well enough founded to be considered a fact, we can make another list of "claims," where we write down this other stuff and indicate just who is claiming what.

Fact mining is often a matter of judgment calls, which means that there is sometimes room for disagreement about whether or not a particular claim should be considered a fact or not. The bottom line here is to think about whether or not considering that claim a fact will make it easier or harder to come to a logically justified conclusion about the basic issue. But, since I have no idea of how to explain how to think about that, I'm just going to give you a few basic rules, work some examples, and hope for the best.

Rule number one. If some claim is strongly consistent with our background knowledge, then we can probably take it as a fact. So if an arguer says something to that we knew before she told it to us, that's a good reason to take it as a fact. Of course, if the other arguer is claiming the exact opposite, then maybe we shouldn't take this claim as a fact after all.

Rule number two. If something said by one arguer is accepted without question by the other arguer, then we can probably take that thing as a fact, at least for the purposes of evaluating the logic of the relevant arguments. However, if it's pretty clear that the other arguer would not accept that claim, then probably we should take it as a claim rather than a fact.

One trick to figuring out whether some premise in an argument can be taken as a fact is to ask whether someone who disagrees with the conclusion of the argument would also necessarily disagree with that premise. If someone who disagrees with the conclusion would also be expected to disagree with that premise, then we should treat that premise as a claim rather than a fact.

Example 15. 

Argument Set
Witta. That gas gauge needle's getting close to "E", so we should stop and put gas in the tank very soon.
Courtney. I can prove absolutely that the windshield washer fluid container is full, and will stay full for a long, long time. So you're wrong as usual.
 

Courtney doesn't say anything about the gas gauge, so Witta's comment about the needle goes down as a fact. Witta doesn't say anything about windshield washer fluid, so Courtney's comment about that goes down as a fact. Witta's conclusion is controversial here, so it goes down as a claim, as do Courtney's comments about Witta. The thing about the windshield washer fluid container staying full for a long time seems a bit iffy to me, so I put it down as a claim.

The bottom line is, "facts" are things that we are darn sure are true (at least as far as our exercises are concerned), whereas "claims" are things that may or may not be true. When in doubt, call it a claim.

Most of the content of this class will consist of describing different kinds of arguments, how they work, and how they should be evaluated. Since this chapter is basically about how to do the Fist of Death, I'm only going to introduce a few basic issues here so you'll have something to work with on the in-class exercises.

All and only facts count.

All and only true logical principles count.

Tactics

A "counter" argument is one that gives you a reason to think that some other argument has a logical problem. Now, it's not possible to do this merely by giving reasons in favor of some contradictory conclusion being true. All that would prove is that we have two arguments that contradict each other. No, a counter argument must either give reasons why one of the other argument's premises is false, or it must give us a reason to think that those premises, if true, fail to support the conclusion given. I call any argument that isn't a counter argument a "direct" argument.

So, there's two ways to mount a counter argument.

1. Attack one or more of the other argument's factual claims. A counter argument that's going this route will attempt to give reasons why one or more of these factual claims can't be true.

2. Attack the "candidate principle" the other arguer is relying on to try to connect his factual claims to his conclusion. (I call it a "candidate" principle because the arguer is offering it up as a prospective logical principle, but we don't yet know whether it really is a principle or not.) This kind of counter argument will try to show that the candidate principle isn't a real principle of logic.

One way to think about it is that, in evaluating a counter argument, we look closely at the other argument to see if it really has the logical problem the counter argument says it has. But in evaluating a direct argument, we can in principle completely ignore all other arguments, because the issue of whether a direct argument works or not depends entirely on whether it's premises are true and whether, if true, they logically support it's conclusion. (If there's a counter argument about, we could think about whether our direct argument really has the logical problem alleged in the counter argument, but we can, and should, do that even if there's no counter argument.) Direct arguments can be evaluated independently. A counter argument can never be evaluated without thinking about the argument it purports to attack.

Thus there are two distinctly different kinds of responses to any given argument. There are what I call the "not" responses, which pick some crucial fact in the argument, and claim that that fact is not true. And there are the "so what?" responses that attempt to show that the facts given do not imply that the conclusion is true. In real life, a challenge to someone's facts will throw you into examining arguments for and against those challenged facts. For this course, I want you to simply assume that a mere challenge is enough to throw a fact into question. The same does not hold for candidate principles. The counter argument must do more than simply say "so what?" The "so what?" counter argument must give a logical reason why the facts given do not imply the conclusion. It cannot simply insist that the logic is bad. In particular, it cannot insist that the logic is bad merely because the arguer refuses to accept the argument's conclusion.

Here, for instance, (in red), is an attempt at a counter argument that totally fails to be a real counter argument.

Randall. Your god Vuntag is defined in such a way as to clearly imply that it is absolutely impossible for cheese to exist. And yet cheese exists in enormous variety and profusion in our world! So I think it's pretty clear that the problem of cheese proves that Vuntag doesn't exist!
Halle. That is an absolutely terrible argument. It's true that Vuntag is defined in a way that absolutely implies that cheese cannot possibly exist. And it's also true that our world contains absolutely staggering amounts of cheese in an amazing variety of colors, textures and flavors. But, it is absolutely false that these two facts together mean that Vuntag doesn't exist, because we know that Vuntag does exist, so there!

Facts:
1. Vuntag is defined in a way that excludes the existance of cheese.
2. Cheese exists.
Neither of these claims is disputed by Halle, so they're our facts.

Opinions:
1. Facts 1 and 2 together prove Vuntag doesn't exist. (Randall)
2. Facts 1 and 2 together don't prove Vuntag doesn't exist. (Halle)
Each of these claims is disputed by the opposing party, so they can only count as opinions.

Now, notice that Halle says that Randall's argument is no good, but she gives absolutely nothing that could count as a logical problem with that argument. She admits that the premises are true, and gives us no reason whatsoever to think that they don't imply Randall's conclusion. Instead, she just states that the conclusion is wrong. It's true that, if we knew absolutely that the conclusion of some argument was wrong, then we would know there was a logical problem with the argument, but that cuts both ways! Randall can equally well, (in fact, better) say that Halle's argument must be bad, because her conclusion is false!

You can only say that the logic of an argument is bad if you can identify a specific problem with the argument. If you can't come up with an identifiable logical problem, then you can't say that the argument is logically bad.

Remember, to evaluate an argument, we have to think about whether the premises are true and whether they logically support the conclusion. Halle's belief in Vuntag gives us no reason to question Randall's premises, and no reason to think that they don't imply that Vuntag doesn't exist. Halle's argument can only be a direct argument. She tries to support a conclusion contrary to Randall's without giving us any reason to think that any of his premises aren't true, or that, if true, they wouldn't make his conclusion true. Her argument is logically independent of his argument, and so it can't be a counter argument. Since it's not counter, it's direct.

Now, this will be easier to think about once you know more about the various argument strategies, and we will return to this issue again and again as we discuss the various strategies. For now, I just want you to think about whether the argument says anything substantial about either the other argument's premises, or about the logical connection between those premises. If it does, it could be a counter argument. If it doesn't, it's definitely a direct argument.

One way to tell whether some argument is a direct argument or a counter argument is to ask yourself whether the argument's premises concern the premises of another argument. This is because a counter argument is an attack on the logic of another argument. In order to attack the logic of an argument, you have to say something about the truth of the premises, or how the premises are related to the conclusion. Either way, you have to say something about the premises.

Analysis only makes sense when we have two opposing arguments, so I've added opposing arguments to our examples.

Example 13

Holden This chocolate must be the best in the world, because its name is "World's Best Chocolate!"
Ahmad But they could have named it anything! They could have named it "beefsteak." Would that have made it taste like steak?

Facts: 1. The chocolate is called "World's Best Chocolate." 2. It could have been called anything.
(I think you can figure out people's opinions on your own, so I'm just going to concentrate on facts from now on.)

Holden: Direct argument.
Ahmad: Counter argument.

Notice that Ahmad doesn't give any positive reason why the chocolate in question is any less than sublime. He doesn't say that he tasted it and that it tasted like a mixture of cardboard, sealing wax and industrial cleaning products. He doesn't say that this alleged "chocolate" is banned in Europe as a form of culinary pollution. No, he merely focusses on the logical connection between the claim that the chocolate is called "world's best" and the conclusion that it's the best in the world. (So he's attacking the argument's candidate principle, but we'll worry about that later.)

Example 14

Ellen My dad's a flight engineer and he showed me an airplane's black box, and it was bright yellow, not black at all.
Jaquan You'd better believe that an airplane's "black box" is black. Because, if you don't I'll come over there and slap you silly!

Fact: Ellen's dad showed her a yellow box and said it was an airplane's black box.
(Some of these are tricky. Some are judgement calls, so you might legitimately disagree with me about what the facts are in some particular case.)

Ellen: Direct argument.
Jaquan: Direct argument.

Notice that neither of the speakers says anything about the factual claim(s) or candidate principle(s) of ther other's argument. Neither argument gives you any reason to think that there's an identifiable logical problem with the other, so they're both direct arguments.

Example 15

Kaylin In order to take alien abduction stories as evidence of alien kidnappers visiting Earth, we would have to be sure that those stories are valid. We don't know that they're valid, so they're not evidence of alien visitations.
Harley We know that alien abduction stories are valid because the abductees are completely accurate in their recollections of events.

Kaylin: Direct argument.
Harley: Counter argument.

Fact: Some people tell stories of being abducted by aliens.

Now, I'm saying that Harley's argument is a counter argument because he's arguing against one of Kaylin's premises. If Harley is right that the abduction stories are valid, then Kaylin's argument against taking them as evidence of alien visitations collapses. It is this "argument killer" function that makes something a counter argument. Now, Harley's factual claims could be put together into a direct argument, and his argument could stand on it's own as a direct argument, but here it's functioning, (or trying to function), as a counter argument.

Example 16

Taryn I can't tell much about the logic of this argument, but it's conclusion is true so, yeah, I guess it's a good argument.
Jermaine Bad arguments can have true conclusions, you know. So even if the conclusion is true, that doesn't make the argument good.

There's no facts here. Taryn gives two opinions, that the conclusion is true, and that it's truth makes the argument good. Jermaine isn't disputing Taryn's first opinion, but when an argument is in doubt, it's conclusion is always thrown into doubt, so I'm not taking Taryn's word for this one.

Taryn: Direct argument.
Jermaine: Counter argument.

Notice that Jermaine's argument wouldn't prove anything interesting if it was taken on it's own. What it does however is take aim at Taryn's candidate principle. While I guess he doesn't give much in the way of reasons, he does directly deny that the candidate principle works, which is enough to make it a counter argument.

Example 17

Felicity Freeway Ricky Ross has testified that people known to be CIA-controlled drug smugglers supplied him with large quantities of cocaine for distribution in America's inner cities, so it looks like the CIA was involved in the inner-city drug trade.
Jessie The CIA funneled drugs to the inner cities? Uncle Sam a drug smuggler with an eye-patch and a wooden leg? God you're gullible! I suppose you also think the US government irradiated retarded kids, or withheld treatment so that some black men died of syphilis. What an idiot you are!

Fact: Ross testified that CIA assets gave him cocaine for inner-city distribution.

Felicity: Direct argument
Jessie: Direct argument

Felicity's argument is based on the existance of testimony, and Jessie does not deny either the existance of that testimony, nor the logical principle that testimony of this kind is reliable. Instead, she describes a ridiculous image in an effort to convince us that Felicity's conclusion is ridiculous.

Remember that the success of a direct argument has a different effect on an issue than the success of a counter argument. In effect, counter arguments always support the null hypothesis because, if a counter argument succeeds, we are left back where we started. So the pro side has to offer a direct argument because, if they don't, the null hypothesis wins by default. It doesn't matter if the pro side manages to knock down all of the con side's arguments, if they don't come up with a successful direct argument, they fail. Period.

However, it is not always easy to tell whether a given opposing argument is actually a counter argument or not, so sometimes you have to think through the issue without the advantage of knowing whether a given argument is counter or direct. In such cases, you can first, treat opposing arguments as both direct and counter, and see what happens and, second, make up your own mind about the issue based on the facts provided, and then see how the various arguments in the set under consideration apply to your reasoning.

Complicated Arguments

Sometimes, an argument will consist of two or more smaller arguments mashed together. In that case, you might find it useful to seperate out the smaller arguments so that they can be related to each other, which will help you evaluate the argument as a whole. If you didn't seperate out the various little arguments in the standardization phase, you can take care of it in the analysis phase.

Example 18

Remember that I first standardized this argument

Kiley: The black community should not be upset that we created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people. This wasn't intended to get people to start smoking. It was designed to get people to switch brands, so it's a brand identification issue, not a health issue!

As:
1. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was intended to get people to switch brands.
2. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was was not intended to get people to start smoking.
3. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.
C. This advertising campaign is not anything anyone has any reason to get upset about.

But now I'm thinking that this argument is more complicated than I thought it was, so maybe I need to split it into two or more arguments. After due consideration, I decide to restandardize the argument as follows.

Kiley A. (sub-argument to Kiley B.)
1. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was intended to get people to switch brands.
2. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was was not intended to get people to start smoking.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.

Kiley B. (Main argument.)
1. The issue of this advertising campaign would only be of moral concern if it was a health issue.
2. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is not of moral concern.

Since all of the claims in the above argument would presumably be disputed by people who were upset over this, I'm calling all of them opinions for now.

Since I made it two seperate arguments, I gave those arguments names so I could talk about them. Notice that the conclusion of argument Kiley A is the same as premise 2 of Kiley B. This is why I decided that Kiley A is a sub-argument to Kiley B.

Judgement Calling

The way you analyze some particular argument might depend on on what other arguments it happens to come with. Compare and contrast the following two examples.

Example 19

Let's put Kiley's argument logically downstream from an opposing argument.

Reed The tobacco industry created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people. Smoking is well known to be a serious health issue, and so the black community, and all communities, should be outraged by the tobacco industry's callous disregard for the health of black youth.
Kiley The black community should not be upset that we created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people. This wasn't intended to get people to start smoking. It was designed to get people to switch brands, so it's a brand identification issue, not a health issue!

Now it seems that part of Kiley's argument is a counter argument to Reed's argument. So we can analyze this issue thus:

Reed (Direct argument.)
1. The tobacco industry created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people.
2. Smoking is a serious health issue.
C. We should be outraged by the tobacco industry's actions.

Kiley A. (sub-argument to Kiley B. --Counter Argument to Reed's argument.)
1. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was intended to get people to switch brands.
2. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was was not intended to get people to start smoking.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.

Kiley B. (Main argument - Direct.)
1. The issue of this advertising campaign would only be of moral concern if it was a health issue.
2. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is not of moral concern.

I'm calling Kiley A a counter argument to Reed because it attacks one of Reed's premises. And I'm saying that Kiley B is a direct argument because it attempts to establish its conclusion without directly addressing Reed's argument. However, this is not the only way we might encounter Kiley's argument.

Example 20

We might also find Kiley's argument logically upstream from an opposing argument.

Kiley The black community should not be upset that we created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people. This wasn't intended to get people to start smoking. It was designed to get people to switch brands, so it's a brand identification issue, not a health issue!
Tania The fact that you only intended to get existing young black smokers to switch brands doesn't mean that your campaign won't cause hundreds and hundreds of young black people to start smoking, so it darn well is a health issue!

In which case, we might standardize and analyze the set like so:

Kiley A. (sub-argument to Kiley B.)
1. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was intended to get people to switch brands.
2. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was was not intended to get people to start smoking.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.

Kiley B. (Main argument - Direct.)
1. The issue of this advertising campaign would only be of moral concern if it was a health issue.
2. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is not of moral concern.

Tania A (Counter to Kiley A.)
1. Kiley argues that the tobacco industry's brand-switching intentions make this not a health issue.
(2. The kind of issue an action is depends on that action's effects, not on the actor's intentions.)
C. This could still be a health issue.

Tania B (Direct Argument. Opposing argument to Kiley A, counter argument to Kiley B.)
(1. The tobacco industry campaign will cause many young black people to start smoking.)
2. Anything that causes people to start smoking is a health issue.
C. The tobacco industry campaign is a health issue.

I filled in premise 2 of Tania A because it seemed to me that Tania must be appealing to this particular logical rule, but I put it in parentheses as a suppressed premise because I think I'm going a little beyond what Tania actually says. Similarly with premise 1 of Tania B. I think that Tania is assuming that the campaign will cause people to start smoking, so I put that point in as a premise to one of her arguments. But since she doesn't explicitly say it, I make it a suppressed premise.

I'm splitting up Tania's argument into a direct argument and a counter argument because it also seems to me that she is intending to both knock down Kiley's argument A and independently establish that the campaign is a health issue. It also seems plausible to me that Tania wants us to think that the campaign is a bad thing, so we might fill in the following argument.

Tania C (Direct Argument. Opposing argument to Kiley B.)
(1. The tobacco industry campaign will cause many young black people to start smoking.)
(2. Anything that causes people to start smoking is a bad thing.)
(C. The tobacco industry campaign is a health issue.)

Or maybe not. Look at how I had to put everything in parentheses! This is a real judgement call, so I'll leave it up to you. If you think that Tania's explicit statements make it absolutely certain, then we should count Tania C as one of Tania's arguments. If you think that Tania's explicit statements make it reasonably possible (don't think about likely, just about reasonably possible) that she did not intend to make argument Tania C, then Tania C should not be counted as one of her arguments.

Generally speaking, standardization, contexting and analysis apply to the arguments you've got. You don't need to fill in any other arguments you might come up with until the evaluation phase. Of course, if you happen to know about Reed's arguments as well as Kiley's and Tania's, you could analyze the whole mess all at once. Or you could maybe come up with whole suppressed arguments to fill in gaps in the logical structure. That is the kind of stuff you're supposed to think about in the evaluation phase, but you don't neccessarily have to do it in the analysis phase.

Homework. For each of the following argument sets, determine whether or not the second argument is a direct or a counter argument, and indicate it as such on the Homework Answer Sheet

1. Raegan. How can you stand there and protest the war? Don't you know our boys are over there?
Rohan. Well, if there wasn't a war, wouldn't they be back here instead of over there?

2. Tyshawn. I think that sex education is a good idea. It would help kids cope with their sexual feelings if they knew where they were coming from and what they could lead to.
Magdalena. Ha! Dr. Laura Schlockslinger says that sex education is immoral and dangerous, so we should ban it from schools. That proves sex education is a bad idea.

3. Rocio: Jesse Jackson says that Charleston, S.C. police need better training and better pay.
Estevan: We can't take Jesse Jackson's word on political issues. He wears a tie.

4. Aden. I just read a fascinating book by man called Harold Peterson, who spent ten years researching the history of baseball. He says that baseball was brought to America by the British in the 1750's under the name of "rounders." Modern baseball was established and popularized in the 1840s and 50's by Alexander Cartwright and his friends of the Knickerbocker Base Ball Club.
Lizette. That's ridiculous. Everyone knows Abner Doubleday invented baseball at Cooperstown in 1839.

5. Regan. Don't you know that Professor Bar Soom says that the Mars Meteorites constitute definitive proof that there was once life on Mars.
Madisyn. But Bar Soom is a professor of literature who studies Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars novels!

 6. Alessandro. I was just reading a report by some feminist group or other. They took World Health Organization and United Nations statistics for the amount of the world's work that is done by women and compared it to the amount of the world's wealth that is actually controlled by women. It turns out that two-thirds of the world's work is actually done by women while only five percent of the world's wealth is controlled by women.
Liliana. That is complete and utter nonsense! Don't you know that PARADE magazine reported that 86 percent of all the personal wealth in the United States is owned by women! 86 percent! Now do you see that those feminists don't know what they're talking about?

 7. Cullen. I think it's pretty clear that drinking bottled water causes mopery. A recent study has shown that people who drink bottled water are four times as likely to mope around as people who don't drink bottled water.
Sterling. Yes, but the study also showed that there's plenty of people who mope around without ever touching bottled water, so the study doesn't prove that drinking bottled water causes mopery.

8. Roland. Statistics show that once people start using a sunscreen, they almost never go back to sunbathing without it. So obviously use of sunscreen makes people dependent on sunscreen. Since it is bad for people to be dependent, we should abolish sunscreen now.
Vilma. Doesn't it occur to you that people continue to need sunscreen because strong sunlight continues to contain dangerous ultraviolet radiation?

9. Toker. I've been smoking marijuana regularly for thirty years. I've been a stable and productive member of society all that time. I've never been in trouble, missed work, or hurt anyone. I've never driven while stoned. You haven't given me any reasons why marijuana smoking is morally wrong. In fact, all the arguments for the immorality of marijuana fail for one reason or another. So it's clearly not morally wrong to smoke marijuana.
Citlalli. Can you prove that some time in the future, maybe tomorrow, someone won't come up with a good argument? Can you prove that there's no argument out there waiting to be discovered? You can't, so it is morally wrong to smoke marijuana.

10. Annabelle. I really don't see any reason to assume that Saddam Hussein and Al Queda were not allies before the Iraq invasion. In fact, I think that they were working closely together!
Octavio. But what about the fact that Al Qaeda is a group of religious extremists sworn to destroy secular governments like Hussein's and the fact that Hussein vigorously persecuted Islamicists like Al Qaeda whenever he could reach them?

Possible Quiz Questions (This ain't homework! Memorize the answers for next class, cuz there will be a quiz.)
1. What is fact mining?
2. How exactly are facts different from opinions?
3. What is a candidate principle?
4. What is the difference between a direct argument and a counter argument?
5. How do you make a counter argument against an authority argument?
6. How do you make a counter argument against a general argument?
7. How do you make a counter argument against a causal argument?
8. How do you make a counter argument against a burden of proof argument?
9. How do you make a counter argument against an explanation argument?
This Site is Proudly Hosted By.
WEBster Computing Services