Based on the lectures and Nagel’s book chapter, explain in your own words: (i) W

Based on the lectures and Nagel’s book chapter, explain in your own words:
(i) Why does knowledge need to be (at a minimum) justified true belief, and not simply true belief? (ii) What is the Gettier argument that shows that “justified true belief” is not an adequate definition of knowledge? (iii) Explain one attempt to overcome the Gettier argument, and the main objection to that attempt.
Note 1: do not cite the lectures or the lecture slides / “mind map”. Instead, cite
the relevant part of the assigned readings, or some secondary literature.
Note 2: The questions are in the form of (i), (ii), and (iii) to help you understand what is required and to see the expected structure. Your response should be in the form of an essay, not numbered exam answers.
Your paper should not be longer than 1500 words
You will find attached:
-The grading scale
-The ppt of the class
-The Nagel’s book chapter