Answer:
on grounds of 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
Explanation:
Both Brown V. Board of Education and parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle presented their case on grounds of 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
In Brown V. Board of Education, the court ruled that 'separate but equal' was an unconstitutional provision and that the practice of segregation was 'inherently unequal'. It further ruled out that these unequal provisions violated the equal protection laws.
Similarly, the parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle claimed and argued that racial tiebreaker in district schools subjugated and infringed 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
Though the initial plan of the racial tiebreaker system was to prevent racial imbalance in schools, the court adjudged that the system was unconstitutional because it, more or less, contributed to unequal opportunity in getting admissions.
Jason is probably rated low on the big five personality dimension of conscientiousness. <span>Conscientiousness is the identity characteristic of being watchful, or careful. Good faith suggests a want to complete an undertaking admirably and to consider commitments to others important. Reliable individuals have a tendency to be productive and composed instead of agreeable and cluttered.</span>
The best patriot who helped all the nation was George Washington.
Answer:
Would be more likely to make a false positive error by identify an innocent person
Explanation:
Six-year-old Corey is a witness to a crime, and he has been asked to view a lineup. Unfortunately, the true perpetrator is not in the lineup. Researchers would predict that Corey,Would be more likely to make a false positive error by identify an innocent person by choosing the wrong person as compare to an adults due to his age and because the true perpetrator is not in the lineup despite the fact that he is the witness to the crime.
Despite wide recognition that speculation is critical for successful science, philosophers have attended little to it. When they have, speculation has been characterized in narrowly epistemic terms: a hypothesis is speculative due to its (lack of) evidential support. These ‘evidence-first’ accounts provide little guidance for what makes speculation productive or egregious, nor how to foster the former while avoiding the latter. I examine how scientists discuss speculation and identify various functions speculations play. On this basis, I develop a ‘function-first’ account of speculation. This analysis grounds a richer discussion of when speculation is egregious and when it is productive, based in both fine-grained analysis of the speculation’s purpose, and what I call the ‘epistemic situation’ scientists face.
