If the results of a experiment do not support the hypothesis this does not necessarily mean that the experiment was a failure or that the hypothesis was wrong, but simply that the test that was conducted did not find results that were significant and also showed that the "null hypothesis" was incorrect. Therefore, if a hypothesis is shown to be inaccurate by a particular experiment the issue might need further experimentation because it could be wrong or it could not, but this does not mean the experiment was a failure. In fact proving a hypothesis can be informative for conducting further experiments to conclude what caused the phenomena if not the original hypothesis.
Answer:
When using judicial restraint, a judge will usually defer to the decisions of the elected branches of government.
Explanation:
The theory by which the powers of the judges are restricted and limited to strike down the laws is said to be judicial restraint. Judicial activism is the opposite of judicial restraint. The unconstitutional laws are subjected to be stroked down by the judges. The judicial restraint curtails the power of the judges unless the laws are unconstitutional.
It's not letting me put in the full thing but i have the rest of the answers!
The independent variable is the amount of alcohol/alcohol and the dependent variable is car accidents. as the number of car accidents depends on how much alcohol the person consumed
