C. The firearm must be reloaded each time it is fired
Explanation:
a reality. Realising the power and potential of a changing workforce. ... Is your organisation doing enough to support diversity and inclusion in all the milestones why these biases materialise and develop.
Answer:
See answer below
Explanation:
A fictional book authored by Ellen Raskin in 1978 named ''Westing Game'' about murder mystery.
- without Sydelle Pulaski’s appearance, the real Mrs Westing would not have been found out much sooner.
- Sydelle Pulaski’s appearance at the will reading came in handy as a result of her secretariat training
- She has the capacity to take down notes during the first will reading in polish using shorthand method.
- These notes were useful in the trial scenes as the heirs were able to figure out the downturn of events.
- without her copy of the will the eventual winner might not have been able to solve the imbroglio
- Sydelle Pulaski is an attention seeker
- Her character was a mistake but in the end was fortuitous
The correct answer is A. Good Luck
Explanation:
The attribution theory proposes people explains an outcome, behavior or event based on two main factors: situational attribution and dispositional attribution. In the case of situational attribution, also known as external attribution this focuses on explaining an event based on factors the individual cannot control or based on its situation, for example, the weather, luck or the actions of other people. On the other hand, the dispositional attribution focuses on the inner characteristics of a person such as an attitude or belief.
This implies, the option that is an example fo situational cause of employee performance is Good luck because this factor is external or part of the situation of an individual rather than an inner characteristic the employee can control.
Answer:
[B] Only State A and State B can take action against Bill.
Explanation:
This is because the whole details of the transaction took place between State A and State B. This is why the states involved can take action against Bill. If not, then all the States would have had the right to take action against Bill.
This analysis validates that Only State A and State B would be able to take action against Bill.
