Answer:
A control should have been included in the investigation
Explanation:
It is impossible for the student to interpret a correct conclusion about his experiment, without adding a control treatment where he can really compare the differences between the variables.
Control treatment is an element of research that receives all factors, except the variable being tested. The control serves to make comparisons with the other treatments, allowing to observe the exact difference between a system where the variable was tested and the system where it was not.
In the case of the question above, it would have been necessary for the student to have placed a cart on a ramp of normal height and without sandpaper. That way he could compare the speed between this cart and the carts on the other ramps, thus having a correct result.
Answer:
Correct answers are:
A. Dictatorship of the Roman emperors
B. Inefficiency of the Roman soldiers
Explanation:
Option A is correct because Roman emperors were rather incompetent. Their region was harsh and people didn't like them in general. That made internal problems in the country.
Option B is also correct because through time Roman army lost its stability and discipline. Many mercenaries were part of it, and this led to its inefficiency.
Option C is not correct as new capital that was created on the east was the source of stability on the East. But, Western Empire had its own problems.
Answer:
newly, indust and once agri for 6 and b c and d for 7
Explanation:
Despite wide recognition that speculation is critical for successful science, philosophers have attended little to it. When they have, speculation has been characterized in narrowly epistemic terms: a hypothesis is speculative due to its (lack of) evidential support. These ‘evidence-first’ accounts provide little guidance for what makes speculation productive or egregious, nor how to foster the former while avoiding the latter. I examine how scientists discuss speculation and identify various functions speculations play. On this basis, I develop a ‘function-first’ account of speculation. This analysis grounds a richer discussion of when speculation is egregious and when it is productive, based in both fine-grained analysis of the speculation’s purpose, and what I call the ‘epistemic situation’ scientists face.
