With that being said, all experimental designs that are gauged as being truthful, must have a hypothesis statement at its core structure. And this should be the main focus of the experiment. Hypotheses can be obtained by a number of ways where certain observations lead to the formation of a theory. In a nutshell, hypotheses are research problems that are usually the result coming from a question or questions that are asked about a particular subject or topic. Furthermore, hypotheses must be testable by means of using if statements to make a point.
Your hypothesis is not a fact. It must be tested. Your observations may support your hypothesis or they may not. If they do not support your hypothesis, you have not wasted your time. You have learned that your hypothesis is not correct and that you must explore further.
Discuss the difference between the two strategies. The questions asks us to indentify two strategies that could be used in a low control risk assessment. The two I will use are the User Controls and the Application Controls. 1. User Controls will use design manual procedures to test completeness Also, the auditor can test the controls directly, similar to testing other human controls.
* Is the sample representative? Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises. That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion.
Explain your answer. Identify the methodology, population, sampling methods, and return rate, if applicable. What were the findings of the study? Describe the author’s conclusions and recommendations. In your opinion, could the study have been done differently or improved?
Discussion: Analyze and discuss your results. Did your results support your hypothesis? What there a significant difference between the experimental and control subjects? Can any conclusions be drawn? How much confidence do you place in your results?
One reason a valid experiment may produce null results is a. the range of levels in the independent variable was insufficient to show an effect. b. the dependent variable reflects a broad range of performance. c. that the experiment is conducted in an environment that is too difficult. d. that reactivity occurs in the participants (e.g., they adopt the role of “good behavior”). 7.
However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them. This creates a paradox. In order to explain this seemingly inescapable contradiction, Nagel uses the concept of two viewpoints that correlate to both sides of the argument. Depending on which viewpoint you take, either moral luck or the Control Principle can hold true for a certain situation. In this paper, I will argue that, though Nagel's theory makes sense, there are still holes in such an argument.
The way to point out the difference between the two is through the conclusions. In a deductive argument the conclusion is already implied within the premises, and in an inductive argument the conclusion is not implied within the premises. Deductive arguments are judged on whether or not they are valid, meaning if the premises are considered true and the conclusion cannot be false, it is valid. If there is a possibility that the conclusion may be false but the premises still are true, then it is invalid. When a deductive argument is invalid, it is automatically considered unsound.
Rational knowledge is often derived from syllogisms. Unless both the major and minor premises of syllogisms are sound, the logical conclusions drawn from the rational thoughts are unsound. Scientists cannot rely on rational knowledge alone because rational knowledge involved only form and not content (Jackson, 2009). Empirical knowledge is gained through objective observations and a person’s experience in relation to his or her senses (Jackson, 2009). A person who relies on empirical knowledge only believes what can be detected by his/her senses (sight, sound, taste, etc.).