Answer:
Significant outcome
Explanation:
According to a different source, these are the options that come with this question:
A. mutually exclusive result
B. subjective outcome
C. significant outcome
D. conditional result
One of the most common and important tasks of scientists is coming up with hypotheses. A hypothesis is a supposition on how something works that is based on very limited evidence. Because hypotheses are preliminary suppositions, they have to be confirmed. When a scientist obtains meaningful results that confirm their hypothesis, this is known as a significant outcome.
Being ethical is to have standards. If you are spontaneous you aren't really expecting anything you're acting purely on impulse. So I guess no.
The argument that a law should not be followed because it violates the inherent rights of human beings follows the natural law theory of jurisprudence.
Natural law is a legal system based on a close observation of human nature and on the values inherent in human nature that can be derived and applied independently of positive law (explicitly enacted laws of the state or society). According to natural law theory, all human beings have inherent rights, which are conferred by "God, nature, or reason" rather than by juridical acts.
Natural law theory can also refer to "theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality." It assumes that you believe that killing others is wrong and that punishment for killing others is right.
Learn more about Natural law here: brainly.com/question/11298929
#SPJ4