The earth's moon is unusually large. two popular theories of the moon's origin include the "sister world" hypothesis, which states that the moon formed from the same materials as the earth, near enough to the earth that they fell into orbit around each other. a second theory is the "capture" hypothesis, in which the moon formed elsewhere in the solar system, and the earth's gravity pulled it into its orbit. studies of what the moon is made of indicate that some of its materials had to come from the earth or from the same area of the solar system where the earth had formed. at the same time, the moon does not contain much of the material that makes up the earth's core, so the moon could not have formed from the same materials as the earth. how do the two facts above affect the described theories of the moon's origin? a. they show that scientists will never agree on where the moon came from. b. they show that more experiments on moon formation need to be done. c. they show that no theory accounts for the existence of the moon. d. they show that neither theory is complete and entirely correct.

D. They show that neither theory is complete and entirely correct.

Explanation:

Theory is the set of rules and principles that describe and explain a particular phenomenon (the existence of the moon in this case) and is subject to changes as new evidence emerges that gives meaning to it.

In this sense, there are many theories about the Earth's moon formation and two of the "accepted" theories are described before the question. In addition, both theories explain in a certain way the reason why the Moon is predominantly composed of elements similar to those found on Earth.

However, both theories seem to be incomplete when trying to explain our Moon's origin.

when—without warning—something provokes your anger, you may struggle not to succumb to it. since what typically makes you mad is feeling powerless in the face of what seems unfair, your anger is mostly an attempt at a “quick fix” to right the balance. it’s as though you’re raising a fist in protest, proclaiming that you’re not going to capitulate to such injustice.

there are, however, a multitude of problems related to this immediate, push-back reaction of anger. and probably the key one is that almost never does it resolve the issue that gave rise to it. such reactive anger is probably best understood as self-defeating. as david burns, the author of the seminal self- book feeling good, observes: if realistically, acting on your anger is to make any sense, it needs to meet two criteria—which, in almost every case, is frankly impossible. that is, your anger must:

be directed toward a person who has intentionally (and needlessly) behaved in a hurtful way toward you; and

be beneficial or advantageous to you (i.e., assist you in achieving a desired goal).

i think you’ll agree that only rarely can you claim that your anger is both warranted and , whether to yourself or the relationship.

so let me offer you a two-step alternative to abandoning your better judgment and giving in to the temptation of anger—one that should neutralize your anger in seconds. or, when you’re really angry, in minutes.

but keep in mind that you must really want to execute these steps, be sufficiently motivated to perform them. which means overcoming more unconscious resistance than you might ever have imagined. because there are many immediate “advantages” of anger that can interfere with your resolve, i’ll suggest a few of them that might interfere with your employing this powerful method to rid yourself of counter-productive anger.

explanation:

the objects have the same charge.