Answer:
Feldman reaches the conclusion that most people are honest without receiving an incentive by
studying a counterclaim about morality and arriving at a broad generalization.
Explanation:
A researcher can reach a conclusion that most people are honest after studying a counterclaim about morality. He can then arrive at a broad generalization.
A counterclaim is the opposite of an argument, or simply, the opposing argument. A counterclaim research is one undertaken to establish that the opposite of a research situation prevails. It is a claim made against a situation or an established position in order to rebut the claimed position.
In this instance, Glaucon had taken a position that no man could resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed or dictated. For Feldman to contradict this claim, with a conclusion that 87% of the time, a man could resist the temptation of evil even if he knew his acts could not be witnessed or dictated because he had become invisible, it means that he had researched the counterclaim.
Answer: hi! I'll help the best I can
Good ways
Life would be boring
We couldn't cure diseases
It would make it harder to transport
People could pass away more often
We wouldn't be able to communicate in long distances
Good ways
less car accidents would happen
less self murders would happen because of cyber bullying
we could all spend more time together
anxiety would go down from less use of social media
our eyes would improve.
The earth wouldn't be poluted
Explanation:
So in conclusion there is a huge controversy about this and it would be very hard actually pinpoint if technology would be good.
<h2>
Answer:</h2>
<em>Consequently and as a consequence are linking words which link reasons with results. They are common in formal writing. This is the fourth time that this has happened and, consequently, we can't accept further watches from you.</em>
<em>hope</em><em> </em><em>this</em><em> </em><em>help</em><em>!</em><em> </em>
