A greater proportion of TC parents' children able to TC, when compared with children of not TC parents.
Linguistic evidence refers to any information or data that can be used to support or analyze a linguistic claim or hypothesis. This evidence typically comes from studying language in various forms, including spoken, written, and signed languages. Linguistic evidence can include things like specific linguistic structures, word patterns, phonetic or phonological features, and language use in different contexts.
Speakers use support throughout their speech to provide evidence, examples, and data that back up their main points. Support is particularly important when introducing new ideas, making arguments, or trying to persuade the audience.
Examples of analyzing questions include: "What are the key factors influencing this trend?" "How does this data support our hypothesis?" "What patterns can we identify in this set of information?" "What are the implications of this finding for our project?"
The innateness hypothesis suggests that humans are born with the innate capacity for language acquisition. Young deaf children who become fluent in sign language support this hypothesis, as they demonstrate the ability to naturally acquire language through exposure to visual-manual communication without auditory input. This highlights the inherent predisposition for language development in humans, regardless of the modality of communication.
Textual evidence serves as the foundation for an interpretive argument by providing concrete support for an analysis or claim. It helps to validate interpretations and allows readers to follow the logic of the argument. Effective use of textual evidence can strengthen the persuasiveness and credibility of the overall argument.
Fossils support his hypothesis.
Hypothesis.
You obtain objective evidence to support it by undertaking experiments designed to test the veracity of the hypothesis.
Which type of evidence was NOT used by Alfred Wegener to support his continental drift hypothesis human remains
When the evidence in a scientific experiment does not support the hypothesis the scientist:Confirm through repeated experimentation that the evidence is validReject the hypothesisDevelop another hypothesis that is consistent with the valid evidence
The addition of molecular evidence supported the hypothesis made earlier based on structural evidence. Molecular evidence provides additional data that can confirm or strengthen hypotheses that are based on structural evidence.
Well...it all depends on the hypothesis. For example, if you know exactly how to back it up with evidence, than very easy. But...if your hypothesis is kind of 'far out', and finding evidence will be difficult, then writing it will be hard.
The question is very poorly specified so this answer is simply a wild guess at what the questioner might want. Three possible outcomes of any research, designed to test some hypothesis, are: (a) evidence in support of the hypothesis; (b) evidence disproving the hypothesis; or (c) evidence that can neither prove (support) nor disprove the hypothesis.
You are supposed to assume/expect that nothing happens, or the norm happens. E.g. if you are testing if plants grow more in light, you assume they dont, then see if that expectation is consistent with the result.
You can look for existing studies that support your ideas or conduct an experiment to prove your hypothesis.
If your data does not support your hypothesis, it means that there is not enough evidence to conclude that your hypothesis is true. In such cases, you may need to reconsider your hypothesis, collect additional data, or revise your experimental approach. It is important to acknowledge and learn from results that do not support your initial hypothesis in order to refine your research and understanding.
To support a hypothesis means you agree, and may even give supporting evidence.To refute it means you submit evidence that a hypothesis is incorrect , or you make a cogent and persuasive argument against it.