Here are the answers for the three questions;
1) According to socrates, must one heed popular opinion about moral matters?
Crito realizes that Socrates blamed not justly for his crimes. In spite of this, Socrates won't attempt to get away from his destiny.
Crito's first contention to Socrates is about what individuals will think. Crito says that Socrates' companions will be blamed for being excessively frightened or excessively shabby, making it impossible to organize his escape. He at that point contends that Socrates is giving his foes what they need by accepting his destiny. Crito urges him to battle the foul play that has happened. Socrates answers that Crito ought not to worry over how he is seen by others; he should center rather on living the correct way. He reminds Crito that popular opinion isn't generally the best opinion.
2) Does Socrates accept the fairness of the laws under which he was tried and convicted?
Socrates said to Crito that one is never just in fouling up, regardless of whether it is for the correct reasons. As it were, two wrongs don't make a right. Socrates has made consent to comply with the laws of Athens and has delighted in the benefits of these laws for a long time. On the off chance that he endeavored to escape it would not just break his agreement, which would not be right, yet additionally challenge the authority of the law.
3) Would Socrates have been wrong to escape?
He trusts it is inappropriate to get away or escape. This belief depends on what we call the social contract hypothesis of government today.
Hope it helps :)
Urban environments and metropolitan areas are making gradual advances on natural wildlife habitats. These gradual advances have negative consequences:some animals are perishing from habitat loss.
Which choice most effectively combines the sentences at the underlined portion?
a.habitats, and these gradual advances have negative consequences, because
b.habitats, resulting in negative consequences:
c.habitats; these advances have negative consequences:
d.habitats, and with negative consequences, because
Answer: b
Answer:
The answer is the attribution dispositional and situational
Explanation:
The attributions refer to the judgments that people make on behavior, and this depends on how people perceive the situation.
<em>The attributions are divided into two:
</em>
- Dispositional Attribution
- Situational Attribution
It is known as dispositional attribution when we explain the behavior of people according to their personality characteristics, we make a judgment for the information that we know about them, obtaining an internal attribution about the behavior of the person in the situation.
For example in the case of Gamiel, he did not leave a tip for the waiter and Aliyah attributes this behavior based on the information he knows about Gamiel, who possibly only tips expensive places, Aliyah justifies the action through dispositional attribution.
The opposite of the internal attributions are the situational attributions, these justify the behavior of the people to external events that cannot be controlled but that cause an effect on the behavior of the person. For example, Gamiel and Aliyah had the experience of having a horrible service by the waiter, for which Gamiel does not leave a tip, Aliyah justifies this action to the lousy service received, here she is using situational attribution.
<em>I hope this information can help you.</em>
Taking into account that statistics involves a process of collecting, presenting, analysing and interpreting data numerically, limitations may affect this process. Statistics limitations may be concerned with offering information that only applies to the average population. Besides, statistical limitations appear when results are influenced by inaccurate assumptions as well as when results are reported by invalid sources. Consequently, option "D" is not considered a limitation since statistics often assists in advocating for positive change.
This outcome would be known as a <u>ceiling effect.</u>
In psychology, the ceiling effect is when a test establishes a range too low for measuring certain variable, that is to say, is when the upper limit (ceiling) of the test is too low, inadequate and not enough for the participants that the test is evaluating.
In this case, the participants are supposed to respond differently since some played violent video games for 5 minutes and other group played for 25 minutes. Since the outcome was that the majority were rated as "very aggressive", it's an indicator that they weren't tested adequately: the range was low, and therefore, it made it easier for some participants to get the score "very aggressive".
