Yes, I believe it's possible. You can potentially narrow your topic down so much that you leave no place to make any strong arguments or counter-claims.
Answer:
Animals and plants have <u>different properties</u> that allow us to sort them into group. For exmple, birds and mammals both breathe using <u>lungs</u>. But <u>mammals</u> live birth to live youngs, unlike <u>birds</u> which lay eggs.
Explanation:
Answer:
E
Explanation:
Answer E id your best option here. With A, there is no way to have a fallback, a sort of a null hypothesis to your question. Also most research questions aren't yes or no. B is incorrect because if you want an answer you will consider both sides of an issue to draw that conclusion, but the question will not explore both sides. It will want one answer. For C, just because a question is lengthy doesn't mean it's strong. It can be wordy and poorly constructed, making it a poor question. Since it is a research question, it should be very open for debate so as to draw the correct conclusion. If it is not open to debate, it is not a research question. These all make E the best answer. With specific details you can then focus on those and then draw a specific conclusion that better suits your question.
The answer is A, his life on the farm in the New Hampshire countryside
<em>The Sports Gene </em>was written by David Epstein and published in 2013.
This book supports the idea that sports success has to do with both 'nature and nurture', that both genetics and training are highly influential, but also that each of them cannot bring what the other does.
The more a person practises, the better he/she will be. But up to a point. No one can achieve something that his/her body is not biologically or genetically prepared to do. This idea is in disagreement with other authors such as Anders Ericsson, who supported that training mattered more than innate talents and that could offset genetic inclinations.
