k[]
C is not an object oriented language and therefore has no native support for inheritance.
All results have relationships that support the creation of the result. Look up "Critical Thinking" in any search engine An Argument is one of the relationships Premise statements support the validity of the Argument Inputs and Outputs are fed into and out of Premise statements to cause a change in the desired result. This is basically how people solve problems logically, instead of instinctively. Logic versus Trial-and-Error
Knots are used for a variety of different reasons ranging from support and leverage, to hoisting and rigidness and solidarity. There are hundreds of different ropes to tie like the bowline, sheep bend, clove hitch, and square not depending on the task that is desired to be performed.
Because goto statements usually result in hard to read code. This was a feature of C++ which the creators of Java decided they didn't want to allow.
both
both
yes obviously.
It doesn't. It supports creation.
No, there's not evidence to support that prediction.
Neither. The art of precognition is not exact. If your predictions are proven correct it is unnecessary to adjust either your prediction or the observations. apex- false
To determine if Luke's result supported his prediction, we would need to compare the actual outcomes of his experiment or observations with the expectations he set forth in his hypothesis. If the results aligned with what he predicted, then they would indeed support his prediction. Conversely, if the outcomes differed significantly from his expectations, it would suggest that his prediction was not supported. Without specific details on Luke's prediction and results, it's difficult to provide a definitive answer.
There is no scientific theory of creation.
Before revising a prediction in reading, it is important to review the text to see if there are any clues or evidence that may support or contradict your initial prediction. Consider the context, details, and author's purpose to help you adjust your prediction accordingly. Additionally, you can ask yourself questions to deepen your understanding and refine your prediction.
It is important to acknowledge and learn from incorrect predictions by analyzing all observations, including those that don't support the prediction. Changing a prediction based on new information or adjusting the underlying assumptions is a valid practice to improve future predictions. Transparently documenting the rationale behind the change helps maintain credibility and ensures a more accurate predictive model.
There is no science about creation. Creation is an unfounded myth with absolutely no evidence to support it. Try asking about evolution instead.
That means that your prediction was wrong and that you should include your results in the conclusion and try to explain some of the reasons why your prediction was wrong and if it was wrong because you were doing the experiment wrong.