Mitchell records the amount of time a toy car takes to travel down a ramp one time for each of four slope angles. his lab partner, sarah, suggests that he run the same set of trials two more times. what arguments should sarah use to support her suggestion? check all that apply. more trials will prove the results. more trials will reduce mistakes. more trials will guarantee correct results. more trials will increase confidence in the results. more trials will identify other possible solutions.

More trials will increase confidence in the results

Explanation:

1) More trials will not prove the results , since doing more trials gives more data for the same experiment , but it will not tell us anything about the conditions that judge the validity of the hypothesis.

2) More trials will not reduce mistakes , but it will help us to identify if there was a mistake in one of the trials → if there is 1 result that deviates significantly from the other 2

3) More trials will not guarantee correct results →  since there is always deviations to the right value

4) More trials will increase the confidence in the results →  since more trials will focus the mean of the results into the right value ( will reduce the standard deviation of the mean).

5) More trials will not help us to identity other possible solutions → since more trials will gives us more data of the same experiment under the same conditions , but it will not analyse the results.

Experiments needs to be as accurate and precise as possible. Accuracy and precision helps to keep errors within reasonable limits as they are unavoidable.

How do can we now obtain an accurate and precise result?

After checking that all sources of errors are kept at bay and the procedures perfectly matches the hypothesis being test, it is best to repeat the experiment a few number of times.

Repeating an experiment is scientifically permitted as it helps to eliminate error to a reasonable extent.

Repeating an experiment will also help to authenticate Mitchell's claim and provide a confidence limit to draw a sound conclusion from.

From the repeated results, some statistical parameters that further provide solid backing for the hypothesis being tested will surface.

One of the key attribute of a hypothesis to be acceptable as being valid is that it must be repeatable.

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation: