Tinker v. Des Moines, and Hazelwood v. kuhlmeier is the Supreme Court is about freedom of speech case, and United States v. Nixon is the rule of law case so the only answer is In Re Gault
Incomplete/unclear question. The correct question read;
<u>88% </u>of all Rutgers/Newark students will get drunk this weekend. P2: Booze-Head is a Rutgers/Newark student. Can it be inductively concluded that Booze-Head will not get drunk this weekend?
Answer:
<u>No</u>
Explanation:
<em>Remember,</em> inductive reasoning is often based on<u> broad generalizations from specific observations.</u>
So since from this scenario, a broad generalization was made that <u>88% </u>of Rutgers/Newark students will get drunk this weekend, it seems <u>unlikely </u>and illogical that Booze will not be among those getting drunk on the weekend.
Florida's judicial branch of government.
Answer: <u><em>Kant's Categorical Imperative</em></u>
Explanation: For Emmanuel Kant the <em>Categorical Imperative</em> is a philosophical center of his fundamental principle of the moral concept and duties. It can also apply our human reason to determine the right, the rational.
Kant had this kind of vision in his philosophy, that could determined what are the morals and duties of society.
I believe the answer is: increasing generalizability
Generalizability refers to the extend that a conclusion of a research could be applicable to different people. As generalizability goes higher, The reliability of the measurement would be increased. and it could easily be replicable even if the test subjects are drastically altered.