This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2009)

The argument from degrees or the degrees of perfection argument is an argument for the existence of God first proposed by mediaeval Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas as one of the five ways to philosophically argue for God in his Summa Theologica. It is based on ontological and theological notions of perfection.^[1] Contemporary Thomist scholars are often in disagreement on the metaphysical justification for this proof.

Aquinas's original formulation[link]

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever—and this we call God.^[2]

Syllogistic form[link]

A syllogistic form collected by Robert J. Schihl follows:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.^[3]

Rebuttals[link]

A common argument is that it is not evident that simply because we can conceive of an object with some property in a greater degree, that such an object exists.

Defenders of the argument usually cite Axiom S5, as in Anselm's and Plantinga's ontological argument. Unfortunately this form of S5 is considered by modern mathematicians to be incorrect, and was shown by Paul Almond to imply a contradiction.^[4]

Notes[link]

This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since August 2010. It may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since August 2010. It may contain original research. Tagged since August 2010.

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".^[1] By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.

Though an argument is not "logically valid", it is not necessarily the case that the conclusion is incorrect. It simply means that the conclusion cannot logically be arrived at using that argument.

Though often used unintentionally, fallacies can be used purposefully to win arguments regardless of the merits. Among such devices, discussed in more detail below, are: "ignoring the question" to divert argument to unrelated issues using a red herring, making the argument personal (argumentum ad hominem) and discrediting the opposition's character, "begging the question" (petitio principi), the use of the non-sequitur, false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc), bandwagoning (everyone says so), the "false dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in which the situation is oversimplified, "card-stacking" or selective use of facts, and "false analogy". Another common device is the "false generalization", an abstraction of the argument that shifts discussion to platitudes where the facts of the matter are lost. There are many, many more tricks to divert attention from careful exploration of a subject.^[2]

Fallacies can generally be classified as informal (premises fail to support the proposed conclusion, but the argument is structured properly) or formal (logical structure is flawed).

Material fallacies[link]

The taxonomy of material fallacies is based on that of Aristotle's body structure Organon (Sophistici elenchi). This taxonomy is as follows:

[edit] Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization

• Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.
  • Example

    Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.

    Problem: Cutting people is not a crime in certain situations.

    Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.

    Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).^{[clarification needed]}

[edit] Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization

• Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.
  • Example

    Argument: Every person I've met has ten fingers, therefore, all people have ten fingers.

    Problem: Those who have been met are not a representative subset of the entire set.

  • Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter

[edit] Irrelevant conclusion

• Irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.
  • Example

    Argument: Billy believes that pigs can fly, therefore pigs can fly.

    Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)

  • Special cases:
    • purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
    • popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum—appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
    • fear (argumentum ad baculum),
    • conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam—appeal to authority)
    • to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
    • forwarding the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
    • assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim discredits the claim itself (genetic fallacy)
  • Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"

[edit] Affirming the consequent/Denying the antecedent

• Affirming the consequent and Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
  • Affirming the consequent Example:

    Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.

    Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough. The argument treats having the flu as a necessary condition of coughing; in fact, having the flu is a sufficient condition of coughing, but it is not necessary to have the flu for one to cough.

    Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.

    Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).

• Denying the antecedent Example

  • Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.

    Problem: Rain is a sufficient condition of cloudiness, but cloudy conditions do not necessarily produce rain.

[edit] Begging the question

• Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
  • Example

    Argument: Aspirin users are at risk of becoming dependent on the drug, because aspirin is an addictive substance.

    Problem: The premise and the conclusion have the same meaning. If one has already accepted the premise, there is no need to reason to the conclusion. Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion.

  • Also called Petitio Principii, or assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement is incorrect, and it is not sufficient proof in and of itself.
  • A related fallacy is Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, or circular reasoning. This is when two (or more) conclusions are used as premises to support each other, but unless one accepts one of them as true at the outset, there is no reason to accept the conclusions.

[edit] Fallacy of false cause

• Fallacy of false cause or non sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."
  • Example

    Argument: I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.

    Problem: The conclusion is false because the sun can shine while it is raining.

  • Special cases
    • post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
      • Example

        Argument: It rained just before the car broke down. The rain caused the car to break down.

        Problem: There may be no connection between the two events. Two events co-occurring is not an indication of causation.

    • cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that correlation implies a causal relation.
      • Example

        Argument: More cows die in the summer months. More ice cream is consumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in the summer months is killing cows.

        Problem: No premise suggests the ice cream consumption is causing the deaths. The deaths and consumption could be unrelated, or something else could be causing both, such as summer heat.

        Also called causation versus correlation.

[edit] Fallacy of many questions

• Fallacy of many questions or loaded question: groups more than one question in the form of a single question.
  • Example

    Argument: Have you stopped beating your wife?

    Problem: A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to beating your wife at some point. (See also Mu.)

  • Also called Plurium Interrogationum and other terms

[edit] Straw man

• Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position so as to more easily refute it.^[3]
  • Example

    Person A: Sunny days are good.

    Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.

    Problem: B has misrepresented A's claim by falsely suggesting that A claimed that only sunny days are good, and then B refuted the misrepresented version of the claim, rather than refuting A's original assertion.

Verbal fallacies[link]

Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows.

Magisterial fallacy (Engineer's Resolve)[link]

• "Wherein we think and speak as if our outsider status and lengthy education have given us the authority of a high-court judge to decide what is true." (p. 320)^[4]

[edit] Equivocation

• Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms. Often this happens when the two meanings are similar despite being distinctly different.

Example Argument: All heavy things have a great mass; Jim has a "heavy heart"; therefore Jim's heart has a great mass.

Problem: Heavy describes more than just weight. (Jim is sad.)

Connotation fallacies[link]

• Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of attribution fallacy.

[edit] Apophasis and argument by innuendo

• Argument by innuendo involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. For example, a job reference that says a former employee "was never caught taking money from the cash box" In this example the overly specific nature of the innuendo implies that the employee was a thief, even though it does not make (or justify) a direct statement of accusation.^[5]

[edit] Amphiboly

• Amphiboly is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure.

Example: The position of the adverb "only" in a sentence starting with "He only said that" results in a sentence in which it is uncertain as to which of the other three words the speaker is intending to modify with the adverb.

[edit] Fallacy of composition

• Fallacy of composition "From each to all". Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property. This can be acceptable (i.e., not a fallacy) with certain arguments such as spatial arguments (e.g. "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the garage").

Example Argument: All the musicians in a band (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band itself (composite item) is highly skilled.

Problem: The band members may be skilled musicians but may lack the ability to function properly as a group.

[edit] Division

• Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part.

Example Argument: "The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old".

Problem: Each and every person currently on staff is younger than 700 years. The university continues to exist even when, one by one, each and every person on the original staff leaves and is replaced by a younger person. See Theseus' Ship paradox.

Example Argument: "This liquid is part of a nutritious breakfast therefore the liquid is nutritious."

Problem: Simply because the breakfast taken as a whole is nutritious does not necessarily mean that each part of that breakfast is nutritious (unless the definition of a nutritious breakfast requires all parts to be nutritious).

[edit] Proof by verbosity

• Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosum - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

Accent[link]

• Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist", according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress or insult of an expert pianist.

• "He is a fairly good pianist." This argument places emphasis on the fact that "He", as opposed to anyone else, is a fairly good pianist.
• "He is a fairly good pianist." This is an assertion that he "is" a good pianist, as opposed to a poor one.
• "He is a fairly good pianist." The emphasis on "a" makes this an assertion that while he is a good pianist, there are other good pianists as well.
• "He is a fairly good pianist." This is an assertion that his ability as a pianist is fair, perhaps in need of improvement.
• "He is a fairly good pianist." This is an assertion that he is most certainly a good pianist, perhaps even impressively so.
• "He is a fairly good pianist." This is isolating his ability as only being good in the field of musical instruments, namely, the piano, and possibly excludes the idea that he is good at anything else.
• "I killed my wife?" in response to a police officer asking if he killed his wife. In court, the police officer states his reply to his question was "I killed my wife." This use of accent is demonstrated in the courtroom comedy My Cousin Vinnie.

Figure of Speech[link]

• Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical or figurative use of a word or phrase and the ordinary or literal use of a word or phrase.

Example: The sailor was at home on the sea.

Problem: The expression 'to be at home' does not literally mean that one's domicile is in that location.

This can happen in conjunction with Equivocation, whereby word or phrase is used literally in one part of an argument but figuratively in another part of the argument.

Example: John lives on a house-boat on the sea. He feels at home on his house-boat. Therefore he is like a sailor because he is at home on the sea.

[edit] Fallacy of misplaced concreteness

• Fallacy of misplaced concreteness, identified by Whitehead in his discussion of metaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in discussion.

Example 1[link]

Timmy argues:

1. Billy is a good tennis player.
2. Therefore, Billy is 'good', that is to say a morally good person.

Here the problem is that the word good has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Timmy says that Billy is good at some particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, Timmy states that Billy is a morally good person. These are clearly two different senses of the word "good". The premise might be true but the conclusion can still be false: Billy might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally. However, it is not legitimate to infer he is a bad person on the ground there has been a fallacious argument on the part of Timmy. Nothing concerning Billy's moral qualities is to be inferred from the premise. Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the fallacy of equivocation, that is, equating two incompatible terms or claims.

Example 2[link]

One posits the argument:

1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2. Eating a sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore, eating a sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

This argument has the appearance of an inference that applies transitivity of the two-placed relation is better than, which in this critique we grant is a valid property. The argument is an example of syntactic ambiguity. In fact, the first premise semantically does not predicate an attribute of the subject, as would for instance the assertion

Nothing is better than eternal happiness.

In fact it is semantically equivalent to the following universal quantification:

Everything fails to be better than eternal happiness.

So instantiating this fact with eating a sandwich, it logically follows that

Eating a sandwich fails to be better than eternal happiness.

Note that the premise A sandwich is better than nothing does not provide anything to this argument. This fact really means something such as

Eating a sandwich is better than eating nothing at all.

Thus this is a fallacy of equivocation.

Deductive fallacy[link]

In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.

However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies.

The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion (see fallacy fallacy). Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g., appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.

Formalisms and frameworks used to understand fallacies[link]

A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst.^[6] In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list above are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.

Other systems of classification[link]

Of other classifications of fallacies in general the most famous are those of Francis Bacon and J. S. Mill. Bacon (Novum Organum, Aph. 33, 38 sqq.) divided fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e. False Appearances), which summarize the various kinds of mistakes to which the human intellect is prone. With these should be compared the Offendicula of Roger Bacon, contained in the Opus maius, pt. i. J. S. Mill discussed the subject in book v. of his Logic, and Jeremy Bentham's Book of Fallacies (1824) contains valuable remarks. See Rd. Whateley's Logic, bk. v.; A. de Morgan, Formal Logic (1847) ; A. Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883) and other textbooks.

See also[link]

Attacking Faulty Reasoning Cognitive distortion Evidence List of cognitive biases Mathematical fallacy

List of fallacies List of paradoxes Sophistry Straight and Crooked Thinking Truth

Logic portal Thinking portal Psychology portal

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies, Methuen London, 1970. reprinted by Vale Press in 1998 as ISBN 0-916475-24-7.
• Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• Hans V. Hansen; Robert C. Pinto (1995). Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings. Penn State Press. ISBN 978-0-271-01417-3. 
• John Woods (2004). The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-2663-8. 
• Frans van Eemeren; Bart Garssen; Bert Meuffels (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion. Springer. ISBN 978-90-481-2613-2. 

Historical texts

• Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, De Sophistici Elenchi. library.adelaide.edu.au
• William of Ockham, Summa of Logic (ca. 1323) Part III.4.
• John Buridan, Summulae de dialectica Book VII.
• Francis Bacon, the doctrine of the idols in Novum Organum Scientiarum, Aphorisms concerning The Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, XXIIIff. fly.hiwaay.net
• Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy | Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten - The Art Of Controversy (bilingual), (also known as "Schopenhauers 38 stratagems"). gutenberg.net
• John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic - Raciocinative and Inductive. Book 5, Chapter 7, Fallacies of Confusion. la.utexas.edu

External links[link]

Look up fallacy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Infographic poster of enumeration of logical fallacies
• SEP entry on informal logic has a section on fallacy theory
• Appeal to Authority Appeal to Authority Logical Fallacy
• FallacyFiles.org contains categorization of fallacies with examples.
• 42 informal logical fallacies explained by Dr. Michael C. Labossiere (including examples), nizkor.org
• Humbug! The skeptic’s field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking – textbook on fallacies. scribd.com
• List of fallacies with clear examples, infidels.org
• Interactive Syllogistic Machine A web based syllogistic machine for exploring fallacies, figures, and modes of syllogisms.
• Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate, csun.edu
• LogicalFallacies.Info
• An Informal Fallacy Primer, acontrario.org
• Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies, onegoodmove.org
• "Love is a Fallacy", a short story written by Max Shulman. WebCitation archive.

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (December 2011)

Robert Williams (born May 6, 1987), better known by his stage name Meek Mill, is an American rapper from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He was briefly signed to T.I.'s label Grand Hustle Records and in February 2011 signed to Rick Ross' Maybach Music Group. In March 2011, Mill was included in XXL's "Freshman Class of 2011".^[1]

In 2011, he released his debut single, "Tupac Back", featuring Rick Ross, from his label's compilation album Self Made Vol. 1. That same year he released another single from the album, "Ima Boss", also featuring Ross. The song was later remixed, featuring T.I., Birdman, Lil Wayne, DJ Khaled Swizz Beatz and Ross. The remix charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and peaked at #51. "Ima Boss" is so far Meek Mill's most successful song, peaking at #20 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart.

In February 2012, MTV listed Meek Mill as the #7 hottest MC in their annual "Hottest MCs in the Game" list.^[2]

On May 7, 2012, Mill released the second fresh installment in his Dreamchasers series. The mixtape features guest appearances from Drake, Jeremih, Big Sean, Kendrick Lamar, 2 Chainz and more.^[3] Mill has stated his favorite tracks off the tape are "Amen," "A1 Everything" and "Racked Up Shawty" with French Montana and Fabolous.^[4] On May 10, it was announced Meek Mill signed to Roc Nation management.^[4]

Discography[link]

Collaborative albums[link]

Mixtapes[link]

• BloodHoundz – Grimey, Thirsty, Starving, Hungry (2005) (with Mel Love, Dat NIG*A LiL & Young Pooh) +
• BloodHoundz – Blood in Blood Out (2005) (with Mel Love, Dat NIG*A LiL & Young Pooh)
• The Real Me (2007)
• The Real Me 2 (2008) (Hosted by DJ Difference)
• Flamers (2008) (Hosted by DJ Difference)
• Flamers 2: Hottest In The City (2009) (Hosted by DJ Difference)
• Flamers 2.5: The Preview (2009) (Hosted by DJ Cosmic Kev)
• Flamers 3: The Wait Is Over (2010) (Hosted by DJ Drama)
• Mr.Philadelphia (2010) (Hosted by DJ Ill Will & DJ Rockstar)
• Dreamchasers (2011) (Hosted by DJ Drama)
• Dreamchasers 2 (2012) (Hosted by DJ Drama)
• Same Dream (2012) (with Ace Hood)

Singles[link]

As lead artist[link]

As featured artist[link]

Other charted songs[link]

Guest appearances[link]

References[link]

Tony Holden is a television producer and director. He has been involved in New Zealand television since the 1970s. In the 1970s, he directed episodes of the sketch show A Week of It. In the 1980s, he produced and directed The Billy T. James Show (the 1984 season) and episodes of the Roger Hall sitcom Gliding on. He has produced soap opera Shortland Street, and served as executive producer on numerous specials.

External links[link]

• Tony Holden at the Internet Movie Database

This New Zealand biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

Katie Hopkins (born 31 May 1975) is a British reality television contestant, businesswoman and journalist, best known for her 2007 appearance on the third UK series of TV reality programme The Apprentice, in which contestants compete for a £100,000-a-year job working for British businessman Sir Alan Sugar. Hopkins withdrew from the programme during the eleventh week. She was memorable on the programme for her controversial comments to other contestants^[4] and to the members of the public.^[5] She has made various media appearances since leaving the programme including taking part in I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! on ITV.^[6]

Early life[link]

Katie Hopkins was born to Roy and Anona Hopkins in 1975.^[7][8] As a child she attended a private school and then North Devon College in Barnstaple. She attended the University of Exeter, studying Politics and Economics,;^[8] She has participated in Officer Cadet Training at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst but did not pass the course as a British Army officer and was deemed to be considered medically unfit to undertake duties.^[9] She was once a stand-by contestant for reality show Big Brother^[10] and appeared in an un-aired television pilot of the programme.^[11] Hopkins has worked as a consultant for organisations such as Guinness, Smirnoff, Moët et Chandon, Reuters, Thomson Financial and Barclays.^[12]

Personal life[link]

At University, Hopkins began a romantic relationship with fellow student Alan Hickman which lasted until 2001.^[8] Hopkins later left Hickman for her boss, Damien McKinney.^[13] He was a father of three and 15 years her senior.^[8] The couple left Britain to live in New York; their daughter India was born there in June 2004.^[13] They returned to Britain shortly after India's birth and got married the following year. Their second daughter Poppy was born 21 August 2005.^[13][14]

After filming The Apprentice, Hopkins took up a job at the Met Office in Exeter.^[15] Here, she met Mark Cross, a married design manager,^[16] and soon staged photographs of them emerged depicting them apparently engaged in sexual intercourse in a field. This was widely reported in the tabloid press.^[8][16][17] Hopkins married Cross in an episode of Celebrity Four Weddings alongside David Van Day's wedding.^[18] Her son with Cross, Maximillian William, was born in November 2008.^[3][19]

[edit] The Apprentice

In 2006, Hopkins was selected from over 10,000 people to be one of the final 16 candidates in series three of the reality TV show The Apprentice.^[20] The opening episode of the series, broadcast on 28 March 2007, attracted over four million viewers.^[21] She received particular media attention owing to her on-screen romantic relationship with fellow candidate Paul Callaghan – the first such relationship to feature on the show.^[22] She rejected Sir Alan Sugar's offer of a place in the final episode of the programme, citing problems regarding childcare provision for her daughters, and withdrew from the competition at the end of the penultimate task.^[23] The episode pulled in 6.2 million viewers, while the following You're Fired! episode, in which Hopkins was interviewed, was watched by 3.1 million.^[24] (In fact, since Hopkins withdrew, she avoided being dismissed with Sugar's catch phrase, "You're fired!".^[25]) However, despite her resigning on her own, Sir Alan later said in classic Sugar style that had she not resigned, he would have fired her anyway.

Hopkins was the project manager of her team on The Apprentice for two tasks, in week two^[26] and again in week nine.^[27] Her team won both of these tasks.^[26][27] She was criticised by Sir Alan Sugar for being a "loser", due to her being on the losing team frequently.^[28] She, however, defended herself by responding that whenever she led, her team won. Contestants Adam Hosker and Ghazal Asif brought Hopkins back to the "boardroom" in weeks seven and eight of the competition, both failing to get her fired.^[29][30]