If someone were to question the value of scientific research on utilitarian grounds, which of the following would be the likeliest reason? They believe the research process is too slow.

The potential for the results to improve the world is not evident.

They believe the research isn’t politically advantageous.

The results conflict with religious teachings.

The correct answer is B. The potential for the results to improve the world is not evident.

Explanation:

Utilitarianism is a philosophical perspective ad theory that focuses on increasing the well-being and happiness of individuals while decreasing suffering or pain. Also, for utilitarians, the practical uses and results prevail over other factors. Due to this, utilitarians might argue science is not valuable because a big part of it is understanding how natural phenomenons work, and this might be considered to lack practical uses or to help the world improve. Thus, the reason for a utilitarian to argue against the value of science is that "the potential for the results to improve the world is not evident".

most are appointed by the president and confirmed by a vote in the senate. however, appeals court judges appoint federal bankruptcy judges, and district judges appoint federal magistrate judges. the qualifications for these positions vary depending on the preferences of the person reviewing nominees.

hope this , give me brainliest answer = )

bujías y una hora antes y no me parece muy difícil