<u>Answer:
</u>
The double-blind experiment allows researchers to rule out differences among participants as the cause of differences in the dependent variable.
<u>Explanation:
</u>
- In this methodology of research, the intention is to initially administer the condition and then carry out an in-depth study of the condition that is surfaced.
- The experiment is called double-blind because neither the researchers nor the participants are aware initially of what condition is being administered.
- Thus, it allows the researchers to rule out differences easily in order to determine the condition.
<span>hristian apologists such as Henderson (1999) and Birkett (1996) argued that the conflict between Galileo and the Catholic Church is a battle between old science (Ptolemaic astronomy) and new science (Copernican astronomy), rather than a battle between science and religion. Bergman (1996) and Birkett (2000) pointed out that many Catholic clergymen were neutral to Galileo's theory and several Jesuit astronomers even endorsed Galileo's telescopic discoveries when he traveled to Rome in 1611. However, secular scientists who disagreed with Galileo and failed to defeat him took the dispute to the church. It is unfortunate that the Catholic Church was "used" by Galileo's enemies and since then the Christian religion has been misperceived as "an enemy of science." Clausen (2000) and Snow (1999) went even further to assert that not only does the Christian religion not hinder science from development, but also fundamental doctrines of Christian theology help the birth of modern science.</span>
Explanation:
It’s hard to imagine a political institution less suited to a 21st-century liberal democracy than the Electoral College. It arose from a convoluted compromise hammered out late in the Constitutional Convention, and the rise of political parties in the late 18th century and the spread of democratic ideals in the early 19th quickly undermined its rationales. If it didn’t exist, no one today would consider creating it.
But the Electoral College is worse than merely useless. Its primary function is to malapportion political power, and it does so — indeed, has always done so — with strikingly awful consequences. A state is entitled to a number of electors equal to its number of senators and representatives. Before the Civil War, the combination of the Electoral College and the Three-Fifths Clause, counting a slave as three-fifths of a person, gave the Slave Power outsize control in electing the president, with the consequence that antebellum presidents were almost always either slaveholders or at least friendly to their interests (the major exceptions were both named Adams). After the war, every person counted as a full person for apportionment purposes — but with the collapse of Reconstruction and the violent disfranchisement of African-Americans throughout the South, that increase in representation once again redounded only to the benefit of white male power-holders, a situation that was not largely rectified until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Because a state’s number of electors is based on total population, not actual voters, it gives the states no incentive to enfranchise new groups of people, or to make voting easier for those eligible. And because states want to maximize their influence in selecting the president, they also have a strong incentive to use a winner-take-all approach to awarding electors, which all but two states currently do. The result — as we’ve now seen twice in the last two decades — is that a popular vote loser can be an Electoral College winner.
In a liberal democracy, not everything need be decided by majority vote. But once something is put to a vote, it is hard to understand why the side getting fewer votes should win. And Americans have long understood themselves to be voting for their president, not for presidential electors. It is long past time to get rid of the Electoral College.
by jese wingman
Answer: A
Explanation:
i got this question before
Answer:
The law is not the least drastic means available.
Explanation:
From the guarantees of the First Amendment, it is clear that people are allowed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to petition. People building crosses signifies a religious belief and this amendment promises the right to free practice of religion. Hence a ban on the sale of wooden poles and nails is a harsh means which could affect both the sellers and the buyers also, and hence is not the least drastic means that could be used in such case.
