The correct answer is A) Did the researches tried to find any common factor in its subjects that would influence both hours spent sitting and the likelihood of developing diabetes?
The other options of the question are B) Who pay for this research and what possible motivations would they have to skew the results in a way that would benefit them? C) What are the average mortality rates associated with diabetes and does this risk offset the benefits of sitting comfortably at work? D) How did the researchers measure how many hours the subject sits per day and what qualifies as an official diabetes diagnosis?
A new high-profile study reports a strong connection between how long people sit every day and how likely they are to develop diabetes. The question that best represents a critical examination of the research is " Did the researches tried to find any common factor in its subjects that would influence both hours spent sitting and the likelihood of developing diabetes?"
A critical examination is the kind of evaluation approach that uses a systemathic and logical way to understand the phenomenon at study. The issue is studied in a systematic way to analyze the content and the variables in order to find the best alternative for the solution. That is why the question "A" best represents critical examination.
Answer:
It increased material wealth, extended life, and was a powerful force for social change. It undermined the centuries-old class structure in Europe and reorganized the economic and philosophical worldview of the West.
Roman citizens were too angry about political corruption to fight.
Nepal enjoys variation in religion,caste, language, culture and lifestyle. Though Nepal has a diversity in religion , culture , and nature, there is never confrontation among the people. They respect each other and participate in each other’s festivals and programmes. They maintain social harmony and live in peace and prosperity
.....hence there is unity in diversity in Nepal......
What are you actually asking?
