Final answer:
While 'Objection-prevention is always possible and better than objection-handling' may be ideal, it's not always feasible, hence the statement is false.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that 'Objection-prevention is always possible and better than objection-handling' can be considered false in a general context. While preventing objections can be ideal, it is not always possible since unpredictable factors can arise. The questions provided from various exercises relate to historical facts and interpretations that can either be true or false.
- According to the doctrine of predestination, a person was either saved from the time of their birth. This statement is true, as predestination is a religious doctrine rooted in certain Christian theologies that suggest the fate of souls is predetermined by God.
- The temperance movement was indeed influenced in part by new social conditions such as increasing urbanization and immigration. This statement is also true.
- The colonists' objection to taxation during the Revolutionary period was not necessarily against the principle of taxation itself, but rather the manner in which tax money was applied, such as lacking representation in the decision-making process. This statement is true.
- The two types of interference are indeed constructive and destructive, making that statement true.
- Normal reaction is not a force that opposes gravity but is instead a force exerted by a surface to support the weight of an object resting on it, acting perpendicular to the surface. Therefore, this statement is false.
- Pennsylvania did not adopt one of the most conservative constitutions of the Revolutionary Era. That distinction typically goes to other states. This statement is false.
- Finally, regarding Madison's ability to find peaceful solutions with the British and French, it is subjective and could be debated, but it's generally acknowledged that both Madison and Jefferson had challenges in foreign policy. This statement doesn't have a straightforward true or false answer without context.