section v: (critique of ellin’s section ii.c. – critique of ellin’s central sub-argument from ordinary morality) 10. did you articulate clearly your critique of (logical problems with) all three of ellin’s main sub-arguments [ii. c. 1–3] which attempt to support his claim in ii.c. (lying is worse than deception)? does each item in your section v [v.a., v.b., v.c.] identify the object of your critique of ellin’s sub-argument in ii.c. [ii.c.1., ii.c.2., ii.c.3.]. do the items in section v [in v.a., v.b., v.c.] have premises to support your claim in a, b, and c, are they [a, b, and c] given support from (your own) premises: v.a. 1., 2., 3., (etc.); v.b. 1., 2., 3., (etc.); v.c. 1., 2., 3., (etc.)? section vi: (critique of ellin’s section iii) 11. does section vi (critique of section iii) contain an articulation of the problems (fallacy?) with the so-called paradox within the fiduciary model? 12. does section vi articulate the problem with "the case of the missing model" (where’s paternalism?) in section iii? {develop this question descriptively in section iii and critically here in section vi.} section vii: (critique of ellin’s section iv) 13. did you clearly show, in section vii, the problems with ellin’s incorporation (in section iv) of his central "ordinary morality" argument (from ii.c.1-3) within the context of the fiduciary model [noting that, in section iv, he has already adopted the "parallel view"]? 14. does your section vii (critique of iv) clearly articulate premises to support a claim that bayles’ description of the fiduciary model is accurate and ellin’s description of (his version of) the fiduciary model (which he begins in iii and develops in iv) is actually a description of paternalism? have you clearly shown, using ellin’s own claims and his own arguments as evidence, and by using bayles’s analysis of both the paternalist model and the fiduciary model, that ellin’s version of what he calls the fiduciary model is actually a paternalist model?