Answer:
There are many pros and cons to this concept.
The pros are that we have better materials for protection and offense for our military. Also, this gives individuals better defense, as well.
The cons to this concept is that people in the wrong state of mind can easily injure or worse kill vulnerable people.
So what does this say about the United States in general?
The United States is like a pan balance; if there aren’t many weapons, there will be fewer massacres, shootings and robberies. But, say someone in a situation where that does happen, there is a higher and unfortunate chance that they won’t be able to protect themselves. If there are lots of weapons, there will be more crime, but also an increase in defense & protection and a decrease in vulnerability.
The United States is full of extremely intelligent people which can have dangerous consequences. An increase in weapons technology is another step up in nature and it shows America’s power, brilliance, and intelligence. This will make the U.S. military undefeatable.
Answer:
Random Sampling
Explanation:
According to my research on different research methodology, I can say that based on the information provided within the question Ariana is ensuring that her survey results are accurate by using Random Sampling. This is a survey method in which participants are chosen at random. This ensures that results are accurate because it gets rid of any researcher bias that may occur if the participants were specifically chosen.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
the experiment revealed that <span>people who answered questions that implied that the vehicles were traveling at a faster rate gave high speed estimates.
This results indicated that someone's memory could easily be confused and influenced by simply presenting an information in a certain way that increase the tendency of the subject to conform to other point of views.</span>
Answer:
--He is ignoring other possible explanations.
--He claims that, because one of the implications of his hypothesis is true, his hypothesis correlating obesity and personality traits is also necessarily true.
-- His hypothesis is a deduction from the evidence.
--He is allowing his hypothesis to guide his search for evidence.
Explanation:
There is a lot of psychological and biological correlations between people suffering from obesity and concerned traits. However the researcher is not considering and ignoring the other explanations that are possible. Also, the researcher claims that his hypothesis is true because some of the implications of the hypothesis he provided are true.
The researcher's hypothesis is clearly obtained from the evidences and it can be examined and tested empirically. Moreover, he is claiming that his hypothesis is in order to support his search of evidence. The hypothesis is also related to the evidence from his research. This makes the last two options as incorrect.
Yes, Americans who oppose this new reality argue that this is a government interference in private life, so as to hurt individual freedoms. Of course, such conduct divides opinions. However, it is noteworthy that in the name of national security, this is not illegal, the government has the prerogative to intervene to protect society as a whole. Unfortunately this is a reality that we have to live with, since the terrorist attacks happen by surprise. I agree with this conduct, because in my view it is better to sacrifice some of our freedom to stay safe in this violent world.
