Part one: Multiple choices 1) A person sitting in the compartment of moving train is:
a) in the state of rest with respect to surroundings of the compartment,
b) in the state of motion with respect to surroundings of the compartment.
C) in the state of rest with respect to surroundings outside of the compartment
d)all of them

2) The motion of tuning fork prongs on vibration is:
a) Linear motion
b) periodic motion
c) circular motion
d) projectile motion
3) All the following are periodic motion except
a) moving car in straight line
b) Earth's rotation
c) pendulum
d) Swing
4) The rate of change of displacement is:
a) Acceleration
b) force
c) distance
d) velocity
5) When an object moves at negative acceleration in a straight line its:
a) displacement equals zero
b) velocity decrease
C) velocity increase
d) none of them
6) When the object speeds up its acceleration:
a) decreases
b) increases c) it has no acceleration d) All of them
7) The rate of change of velocity is:
a) force
b) variable velocity
c) instantaneous velocity
d) acceleration
8) If a train is moving in a straight line to cover a distance of 600 m in a minute its
velocity is:
a) 600 m/s
b) 60 m/s c) 100 m/s d) 480 m/s
9) The division between total displacement and total time is the:
a) variable velocity b) average velocity c) speed d) Instantaneous velocity
10) The rate of change of displacement at a given instant is called the
a) average velocity
b) instantaneous velocity
C) average velocity
d) instantaneous acceleration
11) A body completes one circular revolution in a roundabout whose diameter
140 m.
Find its displacement,
a) 439.6 m
b) 440 m
c) zero
d) 879.2 m​

1) a

3) c

5) b

8) a

Lol I deleted the explanation part by mistake

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: