Answer:
Andrew Carnegie was extremely wealthy having built a personal fortune from steel. He was a philanthropist and believed in giving back to the community but he still maintained control of where and how to donate. The kind of projects he prioritized did little to directly help the class of people who struggle daily like coal miners.
Explanation:
Andrew Carnegie was known as a philanthropist, he felt it was his duty or obligation to give back to the community as a wealthy person. But he was also the wealthiest man in the world in 1901 when he retired. There is a big disparity between his life and the life of average coal miner who had to struggle in the mines and risked their health and lives because the earnings were a bit higher than other options for the poorer or working class at the time, particularly where there was coal mining in the Appalachians and around Pittsburgh, for example. This philanthropic view was not ethical because it was the wealthy man himself who still decided where the money was to be donated or invested and in the kind of services it would provide. Carnegie donated to museums and libraries in the Pittsburgh area for example, and while valuable in themselves they do little to improve the quality of life for working class people directly, like coal miners. Although Carnegie did respond personally to some families in the Harwick Mine Disaster for example, having medals privately minted for the families of two miners who gave their lives trying to save the others. Carnegie also gave $5 million to establish a Carnegie Hero Fund (note how the gesture was branded in the sense even in giving it carries the Carnegie name). But 181 people died in that accident that was indicative of other sacrifices many countless other coal miners made to help amass his personal fortune.
This example highlights the role of "uncontrollability"<span> in coping.
</span>
The state of mind towards data concerning the distressing occasion is thought to be the essential property of the individual adapting style. Of the situational factors, controllability is viewed as a variable of unique significance for adapting conduct, in light of the fact that in controllable circumstances data handling concerning the stressor is versatile, while in wild circumstances it has a little esteem.
Answer:
The correct answer is Obliteration
Explanation:
Obliteration means eradication, erasure.
Something that is obliterated means that it is gone.
In sociology, the word obliteration can take many connotations, one of them being cultural obliteration.
Cultural obliteration usually occurs when a person moves to a country that has a cultural context that they are not used to but end up adapting said culture. What happens with their original cultural identity is known as Obliteration. It can also happen when a person adopts their partners' cultural identity while sacrificing their own.
In this particular case, Keiko grew in Japan and Wahid in Egypt.
They got married in the United States and they decided to stay there and "become American" rather than negotiate the differences between their two cultures. This scenario exemplifies obliteration.
Answer: (C)
Rats can learn to run complex mazes even without food rewards present.
Explanation:
Biological predisposition to learning is brought about by an internal inherited quality that increases the likelihood of having a condition or exhibiting a certain pattern of behavior.
It occurs in humans and animals and has to do with genes passed down from parents to children.
In this case, the genetical makeup of the rats can cause them to learn to behave in a certain way over time.
I think the answer is innovation. :)
