Answer:
False
Explanation:
According to the United States law, a non-US corporation and individuals can be sued in a US court provided that the business is operating on the US soil.
Most trench warfare battles took place right before dawn.
<h3>
Answer:</h3>
d. One-shot case study
<h3>
Explanation:</h3>
The reason why answer choice "d. One-shot case study" would be the correct answer because this would be a experimental design that has the least, or fewest, explanatory power compared to the other experimental designs.
A one-shot case stud is a study where students do not use any controlling factors and use only a single test group. Only one measurement would be taken after the study. The only thing that a one-shot case study would be measuring is the post-test results.
A "explanatory power" is pretty much a theory or hypothesis that one could make about a given subject and explain the subject very well and what causes it.
A one-shot case study doesn't have many factors that would help support a theory or hypothesis, due to the lack of evidence it would provide. This is why a one-shot case study would have the least explanatory power.
<h3>I hope this helped you out.</h3><h3>Good luck on your academics.</h3><h3>Have a fantastic day!</h3>
Arguments that appear to be legitimate but are really founded on poor reasoning are known as logical fallacies. They could be the product of unintentional thinking mistakes or purposely employed to deceive others.
Taking logical fallacies at its value might cause to base our conclusions on weak arguments and result in poor decisions. Some of the text relies on the effectiveness of logical fallacies are :
- The Bandwagon Fallacy: Bandwagon fallacies, such as "three out of four individuals think X brand toothpaste cleans teeth best," are something that most of us expect to see in advertising; nonetheless, this fallacy may easily find its way into regular meetings and conversations.
- The Appeal to Authority Fallacy: Having an authoritative person support your claim might be a strong supplement to an existing argument, but it cannot be the main tenet of your case. Something is not always real just because a powerful person thinks it to be true.
- The False Dilemma Fallacy: The false dilemma fallacy claims that there are only two possible endings, which are mutually incompatible, rather than understanding that most (if not all) topics may be conceived of on a spectrum of options and perspectives.
- The Hasty Generalization Fallacy: This mistake happens when someone makes broad assumptions based on insufficient data. In other words, they ignore plausible counterarguments and make assumptions about the truth of a claim that has some, but insufficient, supporting evidence.
- The Slothful Induction Fallacy: This fallacy happens when there is enough logical evidence to conclude something is true, but someone refuses to admit it, instead attributing the result to coincidence or something completely unrelated.
- The Correlation Fallacy: If two things seem to be linked, it doesn't always follow that one of them caused the other indisputablelly. Even while it can seem like a straightforward fallacy to recognise, it can be difficult to do so in actual practise, especially if you truly want to uncover a link between two pieces of information to support your claim.
To learn more logical fallacies refer
brainly.com/question/18094137
#SPJ4
Answer: Indemnification
Explanation:
Indemnification could be defined as securing or guarding to provide a payment to someone who has incurred loss. It is making compensation for a loss that occured.
Rangle has the right to sue Siena for indemnification because she would make him incur loss as he has been sued by Timberline Stables for a breach of contract.
