Which best explains why magnets can push on or pull other magnets without touching them?
north poles always attract each other, and south poles always force each other away.
a magnetic field surrounds each magnet, which affects other objects with magnetic fields.
magnets with only a north pole field always attract magnets with only a south pole field.

Option (b) is the correct answer.

Explanation:

A magnet will always have both north and south pole. It is not possible that a magnet will have only north or south pole.

So, when a north pole is brought near a south pole then a magnetic field tends to develop around the poles. And, as like charges repel each other and opposite charges attract each other in the same way like poles oppose each other and unlike poles attract each other.

Hence, a north pole will get attracted towards a south pole and vice versa.

Therefore, we can conclude that the statement a magnetic field surrounds each magnet, which affects other objects with magnetic fields best explains why magnets can push on or pull other magnets without touching them.

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:

hello, i am papaguy.

i have found an answer to your question but use it as information.

information: because weak acids/bases have low concentration of hydrogen ions, the addition of water has a large impact on the ph. 2. a difference in 1 unit is a 10x difference in concentration for example; a liquid with ph of 3 is 10x more acidic than a liquid with a ph of 4. therefore, a liquid with a ph of 3 is stronger.

best of luck!