The lesser sаphenоus vein runs аlоng the mediаl aspect оf the leg.
Argument: Accоrding tо Aristоtle's theory of scientific knowledge, the goаl of science must be to discover the necessаry universаl laws of nature because merely accidental generalizations aren't essential. This inspired Popper's theory of scientific knowledge: Popper argues that all there is to science and scientific progress is ruling out which generalizations are necessary, which helps us to figure out what the laws really are. But, as David Armstrong points out in his metaphysical account of natural laws—which is the strongest metaphysical account of laws we know of—every true generalization that applies to particulars (rather than Aristotelian "universals") counts as a law. Thus, Popper and Aristotle's view of scientific laws fails to live up to the strongest metaphysical account of laws that we know of. Essay Question: Provide two well-targeted objections to the above argument's soundness, drawing on detailed explanations of the relevant course material. (Hint: you should begin each objection by stating your target (e.g., "The first reason the argument is unsound is that it falsely assumes [insert target]."). Then, you should explain the relevant material in detail. For each objection, your explanation might include (but need not be limited to) one or more of the following: (A) Aristotle's theory of scientific knowledge (including his argument for necessities), (B) Popper's theory of science AND his theory of scientific progress (including his argument for why failing to refute our theories does not justify our belief in those theories), as well as (C) Armstrong's universals account of scientific laws and one of the objections (the objection that's relevant to THIS argument) we raised against it. Finally, provide a clear and concise summary of your argument against your stated target.)