Answer:
Vicarious
Explanation:
Brainlypatrol stop deleting please
Answer:
--He is ignoring other possible explanations.
--He claims that, because one of the implications of his hypothesis is true, his hypothesis correlating obesity and personality traits is also necessarily true.
-- His hypothesis is a deduction from the evidence.
--He is allowing his hypothesis to guide his search for evidence.
Explanation:
There is a lot of psychological and biological correlations between people suffering from obesity and concerned traits. However the researcher is not considering and ignoring the other explanations that are possible. Also, the researcher claims that his hypothesis is true because some of the implications of the hypothesis he provided are true.
The researcher's hypothesis is clearly obtained from the evidences and it can be examined and tested empirically. Moreover, he is claiming that his hypothesis is in order to support his search of evidence. The hypothesis is also related to the evidence from his research. This makes the last two options as incorrect.
<span>This best illustrates that danger of potential catastrophic result if certain facts, key factors, views are concealed in order to come up with a precise decision. I believe the NASA executive would have not given the decision to launch the space shuttle if he was properly informed.</span>
a war? because there are many representations of an attack against a country in many text books that are referred to as a war.
Answer:
c. The suspect was in the room where the victim was found because of the matching carpet fibers.
Explanation:
Locard's exchange principle states that the perpetrator of a crime will leave with something from a crime scene or bring something into the crime scene. These will be used as evidence to get the perpetrator.
From this question, option A is incorrect because the bullets on the victim did not match with the pistol of the suspect, hence Locards principle does not apply.
Option B is also incorrect because the car could have been driven there by someone else or could have just been parked there.
Option D is also incorrect because though the presence of similar fibre carpets on the victims appartment and on the suspect indicate the suspect was in the apartment, does not necessarily mean he commited the crime, he may have been there days earlier or he may have been there that day for other reasons.
Option C fits better.
