Amy gets up from her seat on a train to move closer to the front. just as she begins to walk forward, the train stops at a station. what is the best explanation of what happens to amy?

a. while amy is walking, her body is in motion. when the train stops, because she's not buckled in, amy continues to move forward due to inertia.

b. while amy is walking, her body is in motion. when the train stops, an unbalanced force accelerates her body backward.

c. while amy is walking, her body is in motion, but as the train stops, it exerts a force on amy opposite to the direction she is walking, causing her to stop as well.

d. while amy is walking, she is in motion due to the force of repulsion. when the train stops, she is catapulted forward due to the train's stronger force of attraction.

my best guesses would be d or c, but only from what common sense tells me. answer and explanation, ? guys!

since you're a real machine, your ama is always less than your ima, because you can never totally eliminate friction.

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: