The correct answer should be that noise <span>distorts and obscures the sender's intended message.
Because of the noise, the person listening to you may not hear properly what you said, and thus miscommunication may ensue. If possible, noise should be avoided if you want your message to be received clearly and prevent misunderstanding.
</span>
Answer&Explanation:
This principle refers to those action which are legally permitted but are also likely to result to severe impact which wasn't initially intended like the death of a person as a side effect of the good action that was actual intended.
For example a doctor may give a patient some pills to relieve stress symptoms eventhough the doctor knows that this may have side effect such as actual shortening their life.
The doctor's intention are not to kill the patient but the death would be a side effect of the good results which are to reduce the patient's pain.
Another example is in the warfare where soldiers may go on a mission that requires that what ever action they take few civilian may get hurt in the process but the intention isn't to kill those civilian but it is a side effects of the good operation of eliminating the legitimate target which may be a threat to a country.
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
<span>In randomized controlled trials, people are randomly assigned to each category to offset any potential bias.
</span>Selection bias<span> is the phenomenon where</span><span> the </span>selection<span> of people or groups is not adequately randomized to offset potential bias in research studies. This in turn does not ensure that the study samples included in research are representative of the population needed to be tested on.</span>
The answer might be C hope helped
