What are the benefits and harms of protists? WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST FOR THE PERFECT ANSWER

Well, Many protists are harmful to humans, other animals and plants because they cause diseases and crop failures. However, some protists are actually beneficial to other creatures and are used by humans for various purposes. Plant-like protists produce almost one-half of the oxygen on the planet through photosynthesis. Other protists decompose and recycle nutrients that humans need to live. For example, medicines made from protists are used in treatment of high blood pressure, digestion problems, ulcers, and arthritis. Hope That Helps!

From ~Itsbrazts~. Have a Great Day!

Explanation:

Protists provide many benefits.

⇒They produce almost half of the world's oxygen supply.

⇒ they are an important part of the food web.

⇒ and they have been used in medical and industrial research.

But, like any other organism, they can also inflict harm, particularly to humans. Most harmful protists are classified as animal-like protists that act as parasites, or organisms that benefit from causing harm to other organisms.

some examples:

⇒Malaria is caused by plasmodium.

⇒African sleeping sickness is caused by trypanosoma.

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:

number of electrons for neutral cl