I think Kant says there are moral "near or almost absolutes" that form the basic principles of moral life.
Answer:
lo siento, no entiendo tu pregunta
Explanation:
¿Hay alguna forma de decirlo más claramente?
Answer:
I'm gonna go with<em> </em><em><u>2</u></em><em><u>.</u></em><em><u>)</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>It</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>gave</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>the</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>national</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>government</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>too</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>much</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>power</u></em>
<span> On Christmas Eve, an Irish family who wanted to have a priest come stay in their home and offer them the sacraments would covertly signal this request with a candle lit in the window. The people would leave the door to their home unlocked and the traveling priest would offer to say mass in exchange for their hospitality, starting a tradition that would last for many years to come. Hope this helped. </span>
When testing a hypothesis using a null hypothesis, you use a statement that negates your hypothesis, and, within a certain level of certainty, see if the null hypothesis can be rejected. When testing the null hypothesis, you typically want to be around 95% sure that you can reject it (confidence interval is 95%).
In Rose's case, she is testing the hypothesis that there is a correlation between watching violence on television and aggressive behavior.
Her null hypothesis would be:
"There is not a positive correlation between watching violence on television and aggressive behavior"
or
"The correlation between watching violence on television and aggressive behavior is less than or equal to zero"