This question has three parts that are all to be answered in a single post. Once you have answered the first two parts (about 100 words for each), the third part asks you to engage in a brief (50 – 100 words) assessment (meaning this time you do not have a choice of what to assess). For the (relatively precise) account of how your answers will be assessed/what’s expected, please refer to the ‘Phil 2080 (Summer 2020) – Forums Grading Rubric’ .pdf posted on the homepage. The Question: a. Describe Dworkin’s distinction between ‘arguments of policy’ and ‘arguments of principle’, then explain why it is he maintains judicial decisions made in hard cases ought to be based on arguments of principle. b. Explain what it means on Dworkin’s account to say that a judicial decision in a hard case must both ‘fit and justify’ previous judicial decisions. c. Offer one reason for thinking that Dworkin’s notion of ‘fit’ is, or is not, problematic.