Suppose you were tasked to evaluate the damage risk posed by a comet that was headed toward earth. based on what you know about the average properties of comets, how would you evaluate the risk variables of density and speed for such a comet (as compared to other neo's)?

Reliability and validity reliability and validity are two important considerations that must be made with any type of data collection. reliability refers to the ability to consistently produce a given result. in the context of psychological research, this would mean that any instruments or tools used to collect data do so in consistent, reproducible ways. unfortunately, being consistent in measurement does not necessarily mean that you have measured something correctly. to illustrate this concept, consider a kitchen scale that would be used to measure the weight of cereal that you eat in the morning. if the scale is not properly calibrated, it may consistently under- or overestimate the amount of cereal that’s being measured. while the scale is highly reliable in producing consistent results (e.g., the same amount of cereal poured onto the scale produces the same reading each time), those results are incorrect. this is where validity comes into play. validity refers to the extent to which a given instrument or tool accurately measures what it’s supposed to measure. while any valid measure is by necessity reliable, the reverse is not necessarily true. researchers strive to use instruments that are both highly reliable and valid.

If the economy were in the contracting phase of the business cycle, how might that affect your ability to find work?

Kendra knight took part in a friendly game of touch football. she had played before and was familiar with football. michael jewett was on her team. in the course of play, michael bumped into kendra and knocked her to the ground. he stepped on her hand, causing injury to a little finger that later required its amputation. she sued michael for damages. he defended on the ground that she had assumed the risk. kendra claimed that assumption of risk could not be raised as a defense because the state legislature had adopted the standard of comparative negligence. what happens if contributory negligence applies? what happens if the defense of comparative negligence applies?