Answer:
D. morphemes is the correct answer.
Explanation:
Answer:
A) Those solutions may make the road safer, but increasing the driving age is proven to save significantly more lives, according to studies comparing different state laws.
Explanation:
Counterclaim are claim made to rebut a claim or statement and it is the opposite of Argument.
Considering the information provided, The solutions provided to reduce the occurrence of teen drivers accident is to increase the age limit and make the roads safe for everyone, is the Claim.
The counterclaim will be the alternative solution that can be provided for the claim, which is that there are other ways to prevent these incidence from happening, option C is an example of this, Any law that regulates teenage driving could save lives, whether it increases the driving age, increases the penalty for driving without a seat belt, or limits who can be in the car.
The possible and logical rebuttal to the counterclaim which support the claim is Option A
Those solutions may make the road safer, but increasing the driving age is proven to save significantly more lives, according to studies comparing different state laws.
Placing regulations on factories and industries | I don’t know if I’m right though
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although the question does not provide any options, we can say that the ethical standard that waiting to propose the study violates is "Informed Consent to Research."
In this case, Professor Hammond, first, had to inform the students about the study she was doing so the students were aware of this situation is class. So once she notified the class about her research, then ask them their consent to participate in the study. They probably had to sign a document that serves as an agreement of their participation. The students then would be aware of the details of the research and they would decide if they want to be part of the study. That is the ethical way to proceed.
