Answer:
His positive feelings will increase
Explanation:
Facial feedback hypothesis: The term facial feedback hypothesis is defined as an individual's facial movement influences his or her emotional experience. William James in the 1840s has proposed the idea related to the facial feedback hypothesis.
Example: A person who is forced to meet a person whom he or she doesn't like will starts liking that person.
In the question above, the statement signifies the facial feedback hypothesis.
In order for the student to be able to properly test the hypothesis, it will be needed that certain data is collected first. The student will have to take the most important things in consideration about the creosote bush, like would it be able to survive under shade (much limited sunlight), would it be able to sustain increased amount of moisture (the solar panels will keep some of the moisture below them), but also being exposed under high temperature. The conditions for the creosote bush will change significantly, so these three things will be of crucial importance to be tested, since it is a very specialized plant, and those types of plants usually react very badly on sudden changes.
If your boss spends a significant amount of time listening to you he or she most likely thinks you have a great idea in mind and he /she is willing to listen to. Likewise, if your boss steps away from you as you explain your ideas, he or she is probably already has decided or he/she is simply not interested.
Answer:
It shows that there are things that we, as individuals, cannot protect ourselves from, so we have to trust that the government will do it for us.
Explanation:
The section shows that it is common and acceptable for us, citizens, to criticize and disagree with the government on many occasions, but criticisms and differences of opinion should not prevent us from trusting that the government will work for our security. This is because there are many situations and moments, which we, citizens as individuals, cannot resolve and guarantee our integrity, for this reason, it is up to the government to take responsibility for these things, and it is up to us to trust and follow the guidelines of that government.
In the case<em> Mapp v. Ohio (1961)</em>, the United States Supreme Court declared that evidence that had been obtained illegally (in violation of the Fourth Amendment) could not be used in criminal law persecutions, whether at the state or federal level.
Justice Clark explained why it is so important to disregard illegally obtained evidence. He argues that even if the criminal were to go free because of it, the citizens would be sure that the court followed the law, and that it is the law which is setting him free. Nothing would damage the citizens' trust more than knowing the law is not respected. Therefore, the government cannot fail to observe the law, or bend it to its advantage.
