If the results of a experiment do not support the hypothesis this does not necessarily mean that the experiment was a failure or that the hypothesis was wrong, but simply that the test that was conducted did not find results that were significant and also showed that the "null hypothesis" was incorrect. Therefore, if a hypothesis is shown to be inaccurate by a particular experiment the issue might need further experimentation because it could be wrong or it could not, but this does not mean the experiment was a failure. In fact proving a hypothesis can be informative for conducting further experiments to conclude what caused the phenomena if not the original hypothesis.
<span>The mass media influences politics and the government. They also form a link</span>
Answer:
<u>Sumer</u>, located in Mesopotamia, is the first known complex civilization, having developed the first city-states in the 4th millennium BCE. It was in these cities that the earliest known form of writing, cuneiform script, appeared around 3000 BCE.
Explanation:
hope it helps
mark me brainliest pls
The primary focus of US national security policy is to protect the citizens and the nation. Option C is correct.
<h3>What is US national security?</h3>
National security of the United Nations is defined as the collective term that covering the policies of both the United States's national defense and foreign relations.
Nowadays, the primary focus of the United States is to focus on the security because the government of U.S. gave the guarantee to their nation to give the protection and the fundamental and standing needs.
Therefore, option C is correct.
Learn more about the security, refer to:
brainly.com/question/6454972
Answer:
The implications of Radical Skepticism for knowledge and for the rest of life is described below in details.
Explanation:
Radical skepticism is the thoughtful condition that experience is most likely unattainable. Radical skeptics believe that uncertainty endures as to the truthfulness of every faith and that assurance is therefore never explained. The cause for this is that accurately represented, radical skepticism is expected to be nonsense, in that it presents deep anxiety in our epistemological theories.