On pp$.391-392$ your textbook discusses homeopathic medicine, $"$An Amazing Cure."$\text{'}$ Homeopathic remedies are based on the principle, "Extremely dilute solutions of substances that produce symptoms in healthy people can cure those symptoms in sick people." Some people receiving homeopathic remedies get better. Is their improved health proof that homeopathic medicine works? An alternate explanation of these individual getting better is the placebo $($fake or inactive treatments$)$ effect $-$ that individuals will sometimes improve their health because they believe the medication will heal them. Your textbook writer suggests that the placebo effect is the better explanation based on three of the five criteria of adequacy. Which three criteria suggest the placebo effect is the better explanation, and why? Answer the following questions:

What three criteria of adequacy suggest the the placebo effect is a better explanation?

Why do these three criteria suggest that the placebo effect is better than homeopathic theory?

Does this application of the criteria of adequacy establish with certainty that the improved health of those taking homeopathic remedies is actually a consequence of the placebo effect?