Answer:
The correct answer is D. He should not make any diagnosis at all, since no condition in DSM-5 is satisfied by this clinical case.
Explanation:
Let's discard one by one.
Option A.
He should create a new diagnosis and inform the authors of the DSM-5.
Why not: Diagnostic labels cannot be created from one particular case. A psychiatrist or clinical psychologist is not entitled to create or formulate a personality disorder just because he/she feels like it.
Option B.
He should diagnose the client with Unspecified Personality Disorder (UPD)
Why not: In the DSM-5 the diagnosis of unspecified personality disorder is made only to enhance the specificity of an existing personality disorder.
Option C.
He should diagnose a different condition such as depression or anxiety as a "place holder" until the true nature of the personality problems is more fully understood.
Why not: T<u>his course of action is not ethical. Clinicians must not misdiagnose patients just because they feel like it. Diagnosing a patient with depression or anxiety without them falling within the diagnostic criteria is medical negligence. </u>
In conclusion, the correct answer is D. He should not make any diagnosis at all, since no condition in DSM-5 is satisfied by this clinical case.
Answer:
B. Checks and Balances
Explanation:
The theory in which governments powers are divided, so one does not over throne the other is called check and balances.
This theory cons from the the philosopher and law student Montesquieu who believed that the three branches of powers should be separated and and they should control each other in check and balance system in order to avoid exploit of powers.
He divided power in three branches: the legislative power, the executive power and the judging power.
The first one was the power to make the law, the second one was the power to execute to the law and the third power was the power to control that the law was followed.
This theory spread from France towards all the word and it's now the the major theory when it comes to power separation in the western world
.
The Reorganization Act of 1939 was an Act of Congress that allowed the U.S President to employ confidential staff and restructure the executive branch for the period of two years. This was achieved by Franklin D. Roosevelt by using his influence as chief legislator to persuade Congress to pass the act (option B).
complete question;
distinguish between culture and society then identify three factors that influence cultural change.
Answer:
The most common definition of culture is that it is a way of life. It is a way of life of a particular group of persons that is passed down from one generation to another generation.
we can also define the word society as group of persons that live together in an ordered community. The people in a society could share same beliefs as well as have common interests. A society is also a combination of different persons that are of different cultures.
The main difference between society and culture is that while the society comprises just of the people who share same beliefs and practices, culture is the beliefs and the practices of this people.
several factors are responsible for cultural changes in a society. three of these influences are:
- <u>contact: </u> When two societies come in contact with each other, there is likely to be a change in culture of both societies. This is known as cultural diffusion (the spread of cultural belief from one society to another society).
- Evolutionary changes in technology: Any form of advancements or evolutions in technology could bring about changes in culture. Technological evolution in production technology or changes in means of transportation and communication could influence cultural changes.
- Geological and ecological influences: These are factors that influences cultural changes. An example is rainfall, altitude, proximity to sea.
These factors are all capable of deciding the culture as well as the lifestyle of dwellers.
The answer is: Expert
Expert testimony is a form of testimony that come from people who have deep knowledge and experience in a certain issue. This type of testimony usually regarded very highly in the court and has higher chance to convince the juries to a certain opinion.
(examples of expert testimony are: testimony regarding fake internet account from IT experts, testimony about violent behavior from psychologists, etc)
