What would likely be described in the given situation is
that the student’s coolness and his way of clothing has a connection in a
casual cycle and the coolness in which is being described to him is more of a
construction, rather than to be called as a fact.
Answer:
fraud
Explanation:
In statute, theft is deliberate deceit in securing unjust or wrongful advantage, or in depriving a person of civil rights. Fraud may infringe common law, constitutional law, or it might not trigger income, properties, or legal damage, but it could also be an aspect of some civil and criminal error. Fraud can have as its intent financial gain or other advantages.
Thus, we can conclude that the given case illustrates fraud.
Answer:
resistance
Explanation:
According to my research on studies conducted by various psycho-analysts, I can say that based on the information provided within the question the analyst was attempting to overcome Jock's resistance. He wants to pass Jock's barriers in order to get him to talk about the conflict between Jock and his wife that Jock is not telling the analyst.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
<span>The processing technique that is used in the Schneider and Schifrin’s experiment is the controlled processing. The participants who were asked to indicate if the target stimulus was present in a series of rapidly presented frames divided attention was easier are the participants who are in the consistent-mapping condition.</span>
Abigail was shopping in an antique store and was drawn to what appeared to be an antique plate. The antique dealer said the plate was created in the 1800s in England. In reality, the plate was made in China in 2000. The plate was stamped with this information on the bottom. Abigail bought the plate, but then later sued for fraudulent misrepresentation. The court will not rescind the contract because Abigail did not have justifiable reliance since she could have easily discovered the falsity of the seller's claims.The court believe that Abigail should had checked the item properly before she purchase the antique since the maker of that product had provided the necessary information needed and ignorance will not be an excuse.
