PLZ HELP Would you consider the practice of "ghost hunting” to be closer to science or pseudoscience, based on the information provided in the article? Provide two examples to support your answer.

I would consider the practice of "ghost hunting” to be closer to pseudoscience than science because the work described in the article mostly lacks process and is subjective. In the article, people looking for evidence of ghosts do not set up controlled experiments with repeated trials. Instead, they take several measurements and make guesses about what might be causing the results they see. The people in the article also base conclusions on observations such as feeling a "heavy presence” or a "sudden chill.” These are subjective observations.

Explanation:

when the volume of gas is   changed from   717.73 ml   to 852 ml   the temperature will   change   from 315   c to 452   c

    calculation

this is calculated using the charles law formula

that is,   v1/t1 = v2/t2

          v1=?

        t1 = 315 c   into   kelvin = 315 +273 = 588 k

        v2 = 852   ml

        t2 = 425c + 273 =698 k

make v1   the subject of the formula ( by   multiplying both side by t1)

  v1=( v2 xt1) / t2

v1= (852 ml   x 588 k)/ 698 k= 717.73 ml