Gregor Mendel discovered the fundamental principles of heredity and established the mathematical underpinning of genetics.
<h3>What is Mendel's theory?</h3>
While researching pea plants, Gregor Mendel discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance. He arrived at the conclusion that genes arrive in paired and are handed down as independent units, one from each parent.
Mendel examined the segregation of parental genes and how they appeared as dominant or recessive traits in offspring.
Thus Option B is correct about what factors Mendel studied.
For more information about Mendel's theory refer to the link:
brainly.com/question/25845304
Answer:B Yes, as to the promise to respect the flag.
Explanation:The graduate is correct in terms of the promise to respect the flag , this part is unconstitutional so no one is forced to swear by it. However the she is wrong in the other two promises because those two are constitutional, The supreme Court does require that government employees uphold an oath to oppose any violent action that is meant to overthrow the government and they are required to uphold the state and Federal Constitution. This them makes the option A and C incorrect because in this regard the graduate isn't correct. Government can't however force an individual to show respect to the flag because someone may refuse to do due to their religious beliefs and as we know everyone has the right to freely pursue their religion of choice. Hence B is correct and D is incorrect.
In a mixed-motive case, the defendant acknowledges that some discriminatory motive existed but argues that the same hiring decision would have been reached even without the discriminatory motive
This is further explained below.
<h3>What is
a mixed-motive case?</h3>
Generally, A case of employment discrimination in which there is proof that the respondent employer has valid grounds in addition to discriminatory reasons for adopting a specific negative employment action
In conclusion, In a case with mixed motives, the defendant admits that there was at least some discriminatory intent, but contends that the same employment choice would have been made even if there hadn't been any discriminatory intent.
Read more about the mixed-motive case
brainly.com/question/13122333
#SPJ1