The destruction of an opponent’s resources is the best description of a scorched earth policy.
Option B
<u>Explanation</u>:
A strategy used by the military of a nation that aims to destroy the assets which might be useful for the opponent or enemy to attack when retreating from a position. This military strategy used becomes a policy which is known as scorched earth policy.
The assets they aims to destroy are usually weapons, any industrial resources, communication sites and vehicles used for transportation. This whole process is carried by the military either in the enemy territory or in its home territory while invading.
Thank you for posting your question here. It can be considered to be consistent with the given facts. As you know, an hypothesis, much less a theory, is never proven. It can be shown to be consistent with given observations. As new observations are collected, the given hypothesis may have to be modified.
If the celery became crisp when it was soaked in ice water, then clearly that the water has rehydrated the celery is a reasonable hypothesis. But did it have to be ice cold water? Would room temperature water work? What about boiling water?
And thus most of the time, the success of an hypothesis leads to the design of new experiments to test and expand the original hypothesis.
Answer:
b
Explanation:
I looked it up. so yeah I hope you pass!
Yes, i have.
There was an aunt of mine who has been diagnosed with late stage of lung cancer. Every hospitals that we went said that there is nothing that they can do execept alleviate the pain for her last moments.
At that time, the whole family decided to tell her that everything is going to be okay and opted for the pain relieving treatment.
At that time, i could see that the whole family is being dishonest, since they now every thing is not going to be okay and considering telling my aunt about it.. But i somehow understand because they do it out of compassion and not because they had harmful intention.
