This is the kind of concept a utilitarian would agree on. If the result is positive for a large group of people, we should seriously consider doing it.
However, I would like to comment on this concept. In my opinion (and that's what you're asking for) there are situations in which the ends don't justify the means. You can e.g. think about mass-bombings to fight against terrorism. However, the possibility exists that innocent people will be hit, and will die. Therefore, the end don't always justify the means (in my opinion).
False they cleaned the hearts but not the land.
Both answers A and B make sense. But, the 'correct' answer to this question would be B, Cloth and Clothing. Here's a little background on why.
<em>To give a boost to bilateral trade between Pakistan and Bangladesh both countries have decided to finalize a bilateral Free Trade Agreement. Major Bangladeshi exports to Pakistan include textiles, agricultural products, leather footwear and other leather products.
</em>
Answer:
<u>biological; psychological </u>
Explanation:
<u>Single-detection theory:</u> In psychology, the term "single-detection theory" is described as a theory in which the detection of a specific stimulus is dependent on the psychological or physical state of a person as well as the intensity of a given stimulus simultaneously. The main aim of the given theory is to measure two different parameters via experiment.
