"Two resistors having resistances of 5.0 Ω and 9.0 Ω are connected in parallel. A 4.0-Ω resistor is then connected in series with the parallel combination. An ideal 6.0-V battery is then connected across the series-parallel combination. What is the current through the 9.0-Ω resistor?"

Explanation:

Given two resistor 5.0 Ω and 9.0 Ω connected on parallel

Let R1 = 5Ω, R2 = 9Ω

Equivalent of parallel connection

1/Req = 1/R1 + 1/R2

1/Req = 1/5 + 1/9

1/Req = 14/45

Then, Req(12) = 45/14 = 3.21 Ω

Req(12) = 3.21 Ω

Another 4.0 Ω resistor is connected in series to their equivalent

Let R3 = 4Ω

Total equivalent resistance

Req = R1 + R3

Req = Req(12) + R3

Req = 3.214 + 4

Req = 7.214 Ω

A voltage of 6V is connect across the terminal series connection

Then, since equivalent resistance is 7.214Ω, we can apply ohms law, to know the current that flows in the circuit

V = iR

V = Ieq × Req

6 = Ieq × 7.214

Ieq, = 6/7.214

Ieq = 0.832 A

This is the total current that flows in the circuit, since R3 is in series with the combination of R2 and R1, then, the same current flows in R3 and the combination of R1 and R2

So, R1 and R2, will have to share the currents Ieq,

So, using current divided rule to find currents in R2

I2 = R1/(R1+R2) × Ieq

I2 = 5/(5+9) × 0.832

I2 = 0.296

I2 ≈ 0.3 Amps

Check attachment for circuit diagram and another method

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:

true is the correct answer

hope i