Which of the following statements about energy is true? i. kinetic energy cannot be transformed into another type of energy. ii. kinetic energy can be transformed into potential energy. iii. potential energy can be transformed into kinetic energy. iv. potential energy cannot be transformed into another type of energy. a. ii and iv only b. ii and iii only c. i and iv only d. i and iii only

The correct option is B. II and III only

Explanation:

kinetic can be transformed to potential energy and potential energy can be transformed to potential energy.

potential energy of the body is the stored energy of of an body.

for example if a spring at rest in given some initial velocity to compress the spring when the spring comes to momentary rest the kinetic energy given to the spring is concerted to potential energy which is stored in the spring

and when it comes back to its original position the potential energy of the spring is converted to kinetic energy

B. || and ||| only I just had this question on study island

Explanation:

hope i helped

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:

layers of the earth affect the waves and these effects are seen on instruiments such as seimometers