Answer:
The correct answer is Inductive reasoning.
Explanation:
Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning in which the truth of the premises supports the conclusion, but does not guarantee it. A classic example of inductive reasoning is:
- All the crows observed so far have been black
- Therefore, all crows are black
In principle, it could be that the next crow observed is not black. In contrast to deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning has the advantage of being expansive, that is, the conclusion contains more information than is contained in the premises. Given its expansive nature, inductive reasoning is very useful and frequent in science and in everyday life. However, given its fallible nature, its justification is problematic. When are we justified in making an inductive inference, and concluding, for example, that all crows are black from a limited sample of them? What distinguishes a good inductive argument from a bad one? These and other related problems give rise to the problem of induction, whose validity and importance has continued for centuries.
The government really just expected reduced highway fatalities. Even though that it costs these multibillion dollar companies a little more to let their drivers rest, it sill makes the roads safe for all drivers. Driving while tired is almost as bad as driving under the influence, so making sure that these truck drivers get sleep make sure everything is super safe for everyone.
Answer:
$3.2 million
Explanation:
The revenue and gross profit or loss which the company identify in the first and second year if it recognizes revenue upon contract completion is calculated below.
Total costs = Incurred costs + estimated costs to complete = $8 million + $12 million = $20 million
Revenue to recognize = $8m/$20m*$28m = $11.2 million
Gross Profit = Revenue recognized less costs incurred
= $11.2m - $8m = $3.2 million
option C to persuade, just took the test
