The Rosensweig (rat) studies and Minnesota twin studies seemingly demonstrated that opposing theories of what determines psychological characteristics were both correct. What is the best way to think about these results

Hello. You forgot to introduce the answer options. the options are:

a. the twin studies showing the importance of genetics were probably more correct because you can't extrapolate results from rats onto humans b. the rat studies were more correct because they were much better controlled and had more replications c. genetics only matter in adverse environments d. environment only matters if there are "bad" genes e. environment (nurture) and genetics (nature) are both equally important in determining psychological characteristics

e. environment (nurture) and genetics (nature) are both equally important in determining psychological characteristics.

Explanation:

Both experiments can describe the importance of the environment in our biological and psychological development, being an essential factor for our existence as human beings. On the other hand, without our genetic construction, the environment cannot act on our organisms. In this case, we can say that although the environment is fundamental, genetics is equally important for our development, and we need a balanced interaction between these two factors, in order to have an effective development.

these are the choices

local priests

european monarchs

common people

bible translators

quote is the answer your looking for.