The answer is the Respiratory System. Hope this Helps:)))
Answer:
Mike would most likely be prohibited from suing Lori for negligence under:
4. a Good Samaritan statute.
Explanation:
<u>The name Good Samaritan is an allusion to the biblical character who selflessly helped someone else. Good Samaritan laws exist to protect people who help others in difficult situations. They take into consideration the fact that the person who helped did so in good faith, with the sole purpose of aiding and without any intention of obtaining personal gain.</u> Thus, under a Good Samaritan statute, Mike would most likely be prohibited from suing Lori, who helped him when he needed.
The process of assessing a project's feasibility occurs during the component design phase of the systems development life cycle [SDLC] is false.
The purpose of System Development Life Cycle [SDLC] methodology is to provide IT project managers tools to help ensure successful implementation of systems that satisfy business objectives. The process of assessing a project's feasibility occurs during the Feasibility phase. This phase is an initial investigation phase or study of the problem to determine whether the project should be pursued. It investigates the requirements expressed in the business case and practicality of proposed solutions. Then it gives the approval to go ahead with the project. Further, it produces a project plan and estimates the budget for further stages
To learn more about SDLC click here:
brainly.com/question/23419425
#SPJ4
The options are not given in the question, I found the exercise and here are the options:
Frogs, Rocks, Humans and Flies.Aristotle’s
main work on this was classification of animals, the Scala Naturae or Ladder of Nature, which was not
evolutionary in its structure. It included everything from God to
minerals etc. The mentioned objects will be in the following order according to
the ladder of Nature:
<span>Lowest on the ladder: Rocks,</span>
<span>
<span>Lower: Frogs</span>
<span>Lower still: Flies</span>
<span>Highest on the ladder: Humans</span></span>
Answer:
Inductive
Explanation:
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning creates wide conclusions from certain observations, just as in this case study, the rate of murder. Majorly, there is data (in our case study- This pattern holds true, even when she controls for population differences (so it is not due to more people living in northern cities)), then generalizations are made from the data (from our case study--greater "culture of violence" in the south produces higher murder rates). This is often referred to as inductive logic, according to Utah State University.
"In inductive inference, there is a shift from an actual one to general form. We make many notations, create a pattern, make a conclusion, and create an explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "In science, there is a constant interconnection among inductive inference (based on notations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we arrive in proximity to the 'truth,' by not just approaching but to be able to prove with total certainty."
Another instance of inductive logic is, "when a person pulls out a coin from a bag and it happened to be a penny. On reaching out the second time, the person also picked a penny, and at the third time, a third coin from the bag is also a penny. It will bring the person to make a generalization that all the coins in the bag are pennies."
Even if the entire premises are correct in a statement, inductive reasoning permits for the generalization to be false. Another example "Semai is a grandmother. Semai is bald. Therefore, all grandmothers are bald." The generalization does not comply logically from the statements.
