Sometimes we miss an important part of the picture. We just don't understand all the factors that affect the situation, so there are factors that aren't even programmed into the model.<span>
</span>
Answer:
Circumstantial evidence, in the context of law, means evidence that can only be proven through the support of another fact.
Explanation:
In other words, the evidence cannot stand on its own. In the context of the example, for example, it would be that the bus driver was found guilty of murder since his fingerprints were found in the scene of the crime.
However, his fingerprints alone do not tell us who is the culprit of the murder - it's possible that his fingerprints were there because he and the murder victims were close friends, and thus his fingerprints can be found all over the apartment.
When relying merely on circumstantial evidence (such as one previously exemplified), it is possible that the evidence is misattributed. A piece of stronger evidence would be direct ones, for example, if the murder weapon was found on him, or if there were eyewitness report showing that he was at the scene of the crime when it occurred.
Yes I believe it could. If you go into detail on lessons learned or talk about the place in detail it definitely can be.
Hope that helped :)
Answer + Explanation:
Water plays a significant role in rock erosion since it’s<u> able to move these weathered materials from one point to another</u>. Moving water such as currents in oceans or rivers plays a significant role in erosion because they <u>move materials from their primary source to a separate location</u>.
