Answer:
The answer is <em>false</em>.
Explanation:
Although very popular in crime novels and TV shows, microscopic hair analysis isn't as reliable as it may seem. It was widely used during 1950-s and 1960-s as the best test to match a hair sample with the suspect, but modern tests proved it to be wrong. Microscopic analysis can give some information about the hair sample such as origin (human, animal or synthetic fiber), color, pigment distribution... For example, if the hair sample found was brown, and the suspect was black-haired, we could claim that he was Innocent. But if the found hair was black, does that mean that we could be absolutely sure that the suspect is guilty? Of course not, microscopic analysis can not provide evidence for that claim. On the other hand, the best method for matching biological samples, at the present time, is DNA analysis.
A stimulus is the enviromental factor that causes a chang in position or place while a response is the change made caused by the stimulus
He/she would be able to conclude that due to the lack of uracil and presence of double strands that the molecule is DNA and not RNA.
