Whenever a research is done, you must reject or accept a null hypothesis (the one you consider is not correct) or your work hypothesis (the theory you think is must probably accurate or close to the truth) usually, when performing a research, you will not always obtain positive or statistically significant results, that validate your hypothesis. Is actually, not unusual that extremes (or extraordinary results) come out (unexpected for several reasons: incorrect size of the sample, improper selection of the subjects- a bias- lack of correct determination of the variable measured or failure to determine the type of the variable-numerical, categorical, ratio,etc-)
Positive or negative results are yet, results whether they prove or reject your hypothesis. Failing to establish a scientific hypothesis does not necessarily mean that they did something wrong, it just says that the hypothesis tested does not approach correctly to the epistemological truth (ultimately, any research is only a mere approximation to reality). Therefore, when two scientists deny sharing<em> unusual results</em>, they are acting unethically, hiding results that can mean something from a different point of view.
reference
Nicholson, R. S. (1989). On being a scientist. Science, 246(4928), 305-306.
Answer:
Satisficing
Explanation:
According to my research on pre-approved loans, I can say that based on the information provided within the question the situation that Juan is in would be an example of the term known as Satisficing. This is a decision-making strategy has to do with searching through the available alternatives until an acceptability option is found.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
The centralists believed the federal government had to be strong
The Voting Rights Advancement Act was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) on June 21, 2017, and in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on June 22, 2017.
