Respond to one of these prompts and be clear about which one you are referring to: PROMPT #1: PARADOX OF ANALYSIS. Analyze the concept of philosophical (conceptual) analysis. Is every concept in need

Respond to one of these prompts and be clear about which one you are referring to:

PROMPT #1: PARADOX OF ANALYSIS. Analyze the concept of philosophical (conceptual) analysis. Is every concept in need of analysis or are there some concepts that are self-evident or self-explanatory? Explain your answer. 

PROMPT #2: GETTIER PROBLEM. Come up with your own Gettier example. Construct your own version of a fake barn example. Can you think of a Gettier cases for know-how?

PROMPT #3: ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE. You may suspect that virtually every analysis of the concept of knowledge depends on an appeal to certain intuitions, but that there always seems to be some other intuition to serve as a counterexample to any given analysis. What does this tell us about the concept of knowledge? Is it reasonable to expect that theorists of knowledge will ever come up with the correct analysis of the concept of knowledge or is it impossible to define “knowledge”? Explain your answer.

PROMPT #4: JUSTIFICATION PRINCIPLE: Construct a counterexample to the "justification principle" that figures in the knowledge version of Moore's paradox: if one is justified in believing that p and one knows that one believes that p, then one is justified in believing that one knows that p.

PROMPT #5: NORM OF ASSERTION: Construct a counterexample to the "justification as norm of assertion principle" that figures in the knowledge version of Moore's paradox: assert that p only if you are justified in believing that p.

And please also provide critical feedback to these two people's posts.

PERSON 1:(i will post later)

PERSON 2:(post later)

A substantive post is generally >150 words and introduces a new idea or is a meaningful response toanother person’s post. When responding to another person’s post, please either expand the thought, addadditional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why.