Wrong pantheon clippy. Install patch W40K and try again.
Mainly, because the poles are always just barely within line of sight to Earth (and thus line of communications) if at all. So the probe has to either operate autonomously or you have to maintain coms via a relay satellite. Either isn't exactly easy with hardware that must also be radiation-hardened and lightweight. Initiating the deorbit burn should (I am guessing this) be done from the backside or you'll run into even more problems when you overshoot the landing site.
Not really a race (media just likes to frame it that way)
Main goal is prospecting for potential base locations, because the poles have the best chances of finding easily accessible water ice.
And yeah, prestige too, because landing from polar orbit is more difficult.
Murdered by words
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh...
~5x faster rpm than a similarly sized rotor could reach on earth.
I haven't seen all shows, but my picks are:
- Sisko for home turf advantage and Archer, unless I can get a young Picard.
- Picard, Data and Worf already cover almost all combat related tasks. Second pick: Sisko again, Odo for intel, O'Brien for support.
- Smells like mainly an engineering problem to me. I'll bet my life on O'Brien and Seven to figure that out quickly, while the rest can do whatever. If ship battle means all crew available, I'd pick T.Paris in the Deltaflyer over anyone fiddling with the transporter, tho.
Variant quote: Any technology is indistinguishable from magic when observed by a sufficiently primitive person.
Okay... I am not sure where the miscommunication occurs. Maybe it is because I am looking at the process of diagnosis through the lens of statistics and not from the angle of someone implementing a strategy of eliminating possibilities one by one.
As other commenters have pointed out, there is a possibility remaining unadressed by the question and choices of answers, that is very important in practise: That the student is completely healthy. And even under the assumption, he had anything, the evidence presented is too sparse to make a call like that, irregardless of what little information is there looks spot on or not.
It's okay to admit that a case is inconclusive. That's what science has to deal with all the time. As a diagnostician, you MUST have the mindset of a detective, or you're not a good diagnostician. Going by the book (working down checklists, making simple choices) will mostly work, but when it fails, the potential for harm is great. The best fitting answer a doctor can think of can still be the wrong one while the real answer is hiding somewhere unexpected. I wish the workbook above wouldn't ignore this.
...as opposed to the book, which teaches the lesson of being content with lukewarm non-explanations, vague and misleading descriptions, objectively false statements framed as controversial debate, and promoting ignorance as universally encouraged value by swiftly declaring there is nothing else to know, thus dodging the question and going for a distraction with a contextually completely unhelpful bible quote.
And your apology is wholeheartedly rejected, because I know it is standard practise of religious rhetoric to quickly apologize when called out, but learning absolutely nothing in the process and keeping up the assault on rational thought under a veil of "open discussion" with disingenuous questioning, argumentative foulplay and all the other kinds of fallacys, formal and informal.
TLDR: You are the one in dire need of doing some questioning of beliefs.
You got got good
mooD