In social studies, especially those in which you want to analyze or investigate the behavior, in many cases recreating the situation to be studied in a laboratory or the interaction of the researcher with the subject under investigation may be impossible or alter the result leading to false conclusions In these cases, the researcher resorts to naturalistic observation, which consists of observing or studying the subject in their natural conditions, in their environment, thus avoiding a change in the behavior of the researched, either because of the artificial nature of the experiment or because of the presence of a stranger, the researcher, in the environment.
Answer
In this case, the use of another method such as an interview or survey can result in a change of behavior or response by the interviewee, thus observing and recording the number of visitors without intervening with them is making a <em>naturalistic observation</em>
Answer:
<em>Pressure</em>
Explanation:
<em>Weight and baro is bar which is latin for weight</em>
All sources will have some element of bias in them due to the fact that they are products of a specific person's (or specific people's) views. The best ways to deal with bias are 1) to acknowledge the bias and comment on it, 2) to include several sources with differing biases and discuss their differences, or 3) the analyze what the existence of the bias might indicate about the issue.
Answer:
Boats of the Neolithic era were very simple. They were essentially rafts, made of easy to find materials such as wood.
In the Neolithic, there were many cultures that built boats, and sailed across the sea, but mostly for relatively short distances. Interoceanic navigation was essentially null.
Boats of the modern era have evolved a lot. From sailing boats, to large rowing boats like the Viking longships, to mechanical boats of the modern era. This evolution is to be expected since boats are among the first human inventions in history, dating back to thousands of years before the Neolithic Revolution.
In order to answer this question, I will use two different perspectives of ethics: the consequentialist perspective, and the deontological perspective.
Consequentialism argues that the morality of an action lies with its consequences. This means that an action with bad consequences is an immoral action, and vice versa. In this case, killing the last remaining Redwood would not have any negative consequence on any being in the world, as no one benefits from it anymore. This means that the act is not immoral.
A deontological perspective states that there are principles that should be taken as rules, and which govern what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, rules and duties are central. For example, a principle might state that "all life is valuable." As the Redwood falls under the definition of life, killing it would be considered an immoral action.
