Here is a question about this article: The critic Joseph Bedier (18641938) launched a particularly withering attack on stemmatics in 1928. He surveyed editions of medieval French texts that were produced with the stemmatic method, and found that textual critics tended overwhelmingly to produce trees divided into just two branches. He concluded that this outcome was unlikely to have occurred by chance, and that therefore, the method was tending to produce bipartite stemmas regardless of the actual history of the witnesses. He suspected that editors tended to favor trees with two branches, as this would maximize the opportunities for editorial judgment (as there would be no third branch to "break the tie" whenever the witnesses disagreed). He also noted that, for many works, more than one reasonable stemma could be postulated, suggesting that the method was not as rigorous or as scientific as its proponents had claimed.
What is the answer to this question: What was the final implication of Joseph Bedier's analysis of the stemmatic method?
****
So... the method was not as rigorous or as scientific as its proponents had claimed.

Here is a question about this article: Aposematism, where organisms are brightly colored as a warning to predators, is the antithesis of camouflage. Some organisms pose a threat to their predatorsfor example they may be poisonous, or able to harm them physically. Aposematic coloring involves bright, easily recognizable and unique colors and patterns. For example, bright coloration in Variable Checkerspot butterflies leads to decreased predation attempts by avian predators. Upon being harmed (e.g., stung) by their prey, the appearance in such an organism will be remembered as something to avoid. While that particular prey organism may be killed, the coloring benefits the prey species as a whole.
What is the answer to this question: What visual cues are characteristic of aposematism?
****
So... bright, easily recognizable and unique colors and patterns

Here is a question about this article: Serbo-Croatian was standardized in the mid-19th-century Vienna Literary Agreement by Croatian and Serbian writers and philologists, decades before a Yugoslav state was established. From the very beginning, there were slightly different literary Serbian and Croatian standards, although both were based on the same Shtokavian subdialect, Eastern Herzegovinian. In the 20th century, Serbo-Croatian served as the official language of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (when it was called "Serbo-Croato-Slovenian"), and later as one of the official languages of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The breakup of Yugoslavia affected language attitudes, so that social conceptions of the language separated on ethnic and political lines. Since the breakup of Yugoslavia, Bosnian has likewise been established as an official standard in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there is an ongoing movement to codify a separate Montenegrin standard. Serbo-Croatian thus generally goes by the ethnic names Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and sometimes Montenegrin and Bunjevac.
What is the answer to this question: Which language officially served the Kingdom of Yugoslavia?
****
So...
Serbo-Croatian