I think its the last one, but I'm not super sure. The extra play was kind of meant to give some commentary about the actual play.
A timeline will usually you what caused an event unless the cause wasn't important enough to be there like a boulder fell off a cliff because it rained
Answer:the narrator is deemed unreliable due to his displays of questionable sanity. And though he makes some effort to insist he is sane, one wonders whether he is truly insane or suffers some form of psychopathy – which is not altogether the same thing.
Explanation:
Answer:
<u>Step 1: Determine which options are correct
</u>
<em>Which scenarios are considered ethically acceptable for journalists? Select three options/
</em>
- Option A: paying money to attend a conference about climate change in order to do research for an article
- Option C: ending an investigation because it may lead to violence and disunity in a local community
- Option D: interviewing the CEOs of two insurance companies that are competing against each other
Option B doesn't make sense because if you are getting paid by a politician, that can further produce bias which can then lead to false things being spoke/written. Option E doesn't make sense because if you use information from a wiki page, that source is not verified which means that the source is unreliable. Therefore, the correct options are A, C, and D.
<u>Look at attachment</u>
A valid hypothesis is one that is <span>testable and rejectable
</span><span>.Recorded data may be quantitative or qualitative.
</span>
<span> If a measurement is precise, it is highly repeatable or reproducible is true</span>