1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
fredd [130]
2 years ago
12

The evidence is conclusive; aggression and violence in the media lead to aggression and violence in the general population. plea

se select the best answer from the choices provided t f
Social Studies
2 answers:
IrinaK [193]2 years ago
5 0

Answer:

T

Explanation:

True

Gelneren [198K]2 years ago
3 0

Evidence has shown that aggression and violence in the media lead to aggression and violence in the general population.

<h3>What is the effect of media content on the general population?</h3>

The information passed by the media is usually reflected on the general population as the people usually assimilate and act on consonance with what they see and hear on the media.

The media refers to print and electronic means of passing information and messages to the general public.

Therefore, it is true aggression and violence in the media lead to aggression and violence in the general population.

Learn more about media at: brainly.com/question/26152499

#SPJ4

You might be interested in
Expalin the role of social media in <br>The violation of human Rights. Give an example as well.<br>​
Natasha_Volkova [10]

Answer:

media is a means of exposing the evil deeds and evils of nations. with the various ills going on in our nation the media spotlight the injustice of humans and the violation of human rights. they do this by spreading the news through any social vices and creating social awareness. they enlighten the world and expose the wrong deeds and through this the government is compelled to give drastic measures.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Under​ negligence, a person is liable only for​ ________ events.
Lunna [17]
The answer is superseding. An intervening cause will by and large clear the tortfeasor of obligation for the casualty's damage just if the occasion is esteemed a superseding cause. A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening cause. By differentiate, a predictable intervening cause commonly does not break the chain of causality, implying that the tortfeasor is as yet in charge of the casualty's damage—unless the occasion prompts an unforeseeable outcome.
8 0
3 years ago
For some value of Z, the probability that a standard normal variable is below Z is 0.2090. The value of Z is:
IrinaVladis [17]

Answer: -0.81

Explanation:

A standard normal random variable simply refers to the normally distributed random variable which has a imean of 0 and also had a standard deviation that has the value of 1.

The standard normal variable can also be represented by the letter Z. For some value of Z, the probability that a standard normal variable is below Z is 0.2090. The value of Z is -0.81.

5 0
2 years ago
The Assertion that, non formal institutions have no role to play in the processing stage at the system theory is an empty rhetor
katrin [286]

Answer:

happy friend ship day

3 0
3 years ago
What does this mean in modern language?
vlabodo [156]

Answer:

What follows is a bill of indictment. Several of these items end up in the Bill of Rights. Others are addressed by the form of the government established—first by the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately by the Constitution.

The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition: “First comes rights, then comes government.” According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation; (2) the protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights—or its systematic violation of rights—can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) at least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so. This is powerful stuff.

At the Founding, these ideas were considered so true as to be self-evident. However, today the idea of natural rights is obscure and controversial. Oftentimes, when the idea comes up, it is deemed to be archaic. Moreover, the discussion by many of natural rights, as reflected in the Declaration’s claim that such rights “are endowed by their Creator,” leads many to characterize natural rights as religiously based rather than secular. As I explain in The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, I believe his is a mistake.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • By the late neolithic period, some groups started to have more power and resources than others. Below is a list of events that s
    12·1 answer
  • Why did Sputnik alarm the U.S.
    6·1 answer
  • Helppppppppppppppppppppp
    13·2 answers
  • Kimmie recently lost her job as a successful accountant, and she has not had any luck getting a new position. According to resea
    7·1 answer
  • Which technique of developmental researchers requires a significant expenditure of time as the researcher waits for the particip
    13·1 answer
  • Page<br>नहोस.<br>सम्बन्ध सुधारक<br>उपायहर<br>अरयलिन​
    6·1 answer
  • What is wormhole? paro welcome​
    13·2 answers
  • After the Continental Army crossed the Delaware they attacked the Hessian army, defeated 8,000 British Soldiers, and took Trento
    9·1 answer
  • What was the effect of Spain becoming a catholic empire?
    10·2 answers
  • South africa was under white-minority rule for how many years after its independence?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!