The answer is "<span>It was a subtle way to make participants feel more or less confident."
</span>
When the arguments were solid, individuals who gestured or nodded their heads concurred with them more than individuals who shook their heads, on the grounds that the head nodders had more trust in the solid contentions that they heard, But when contentions were frail, head gesturing had the contrary impact, it gave individuals more certainty that the contentions they heard were powerless, making them less persuading.Thus we conclude from this that anything you can do to influence individuals to have more trust in your message will make it more compelling, as long as your contentions are solid.
Answer:
offering a specific hypothesis and associated prediction to explain why the car won't start
Explanation:
A hypothesis can be defined to be a wise guess. It is a proposed explanation that is given on little evidence. A specific hypothesis can be described as a statement if prediction.
By telling my friend that his car would not start because his battery may be dead, and he has to jumpstart from a good battery, I have given him a specific hypothesis and also a predicted explanation as to why his car has refused to start.
Here are some of their achievements:
- theory of radioactivity
-discovery of a new element, polonium
-discovery of another element, radium
- developing new ways of separating radioactive isotopes
-discovery of nuclear energy ( by Pierre and one of his students)
Answer: C.. God had created a rational universe that could only be understood through reason.
Explanation:
C.) To fuel space exploration programs
C is the correct answer because through the process of elimination, we know that European countries are trying to find energy sources the reduce the amount of air pollution, so A is not correct. Also, we know B is not correct because since fossil fuels aren't always widely available in Europe, drastically running out, and the population of the continent keeps increasing, European countries are struggling to keep up with the demand for fossil fuels. As a result, they are trying to find cheap, renewable energy resources to keep up with the demands of the ever-growing population. Let's skip to D. D is not correct at all because European countries actually <em>do </em>want to find new renewable energy sources, for the reasons stated in A and B. By investing in them, European countries are funding scientists to help harness the power of nature (solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc...). Let's go back to C. Yes, a huge amount of fossil fuels are used for fuel in a rocket, and scientists may be trying to find ways to use renewable energy instead of precious fossil fuels, but is that a main reason for European countries investing in new sources of energy? No, it may be a <em>minor </em>reason, not even a reason at all, but definitely <em>not </em>a main reason. After looking at answer choices A, B, and D, you can conclude C is not a reason for why European countries have invested in new sources of energy.
