Final answer:
false The requirement for a writing sample to be within 6 months to match an unknown sample is false; examiners can use older samples for comparison. The statement that a long-standing theory becomes a law is also false, as theories and laws are different concepts in science.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that an examiner must have a writing example that was written within 6 months in order to make a correct match between an unknown and the example is generally false. The accuracy of handwriting analysis, also known as questioned document examination, does not strictly depend on the timeframe within which the writing sample was created. However, more recent samples can be helpful as they are more likely to reflect the current writing style of the individual. That said, skilled examiners can work with older samples too, especially if they have multiple examples with which to compare the unknown sample.It is also worth addressing the statement that when a theory has been known for a long time, it becomes a law.
This is false. In science, a theory does not become a law over time. Theories and laws serve different purposes: a law describes what happens under certain conditions and a theory explains why it happens. Both are well-supported by empirical evidence but remain distinct concepts.The statement 'When a theory has been known for a long time, it becomes a law' is false. In the scientific method, theories and laws are distinct concepts. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, whereas a law is a concise description or mathematical relationship that holds true in a particular set of circumstances. The development of a theory into a law involves testing, observation, and gathering evidence to confirm its validity.