Answer: Situation specificity
Explanation:
As a person grows, he often understands the behaviors and forms of expression that he must adopt. It is understood that there are ways to behave according to the situation in which the person can be present.
It can be called situation specificity the way a person acts and express itself according to the context in which the person can meet. It is easy for adults the codes established at the time of expressing and behaving according to the place. For children, this is more difficult since their little reason does not allow them to identify at what time they should not cry or play. This is normal since they have not yet reached the stage of maturation that allows them to differentiate at what time they should do something or not, and also that their poor vocabulary makes them express their needs in another way.
In the case of Ari, it can be seen that he behaved as expected according to the context. When he was at the Dean’s office, Ari remained calm and polite. I knew the Dean’s office was not a place to be talking loudly or shouting. Then when he went to a soccer game, Ari started screaming and jumping, something that is expected when a person goes to watch a game of any sport. It is normal to shout, clap, jump and celebrate when you are watching a sport.
Not all people will be able to act and express in certain ways depending on the context and this would not necessarily be because they do not know the ways of behaving. Some mental or physical illnesses can influence a person's behavior, causing them to behave in a way that they do not expect.
Answer:Country (people/sq. km)
Afghanistan (38.3)
Bangladesh (952.9)
China (135.7)
Hong Kong (6,436.7)
India (330.7)
Japan (336.0)
Mongolia (1.6)
North Korea (184.2)
South Korea (472.7)
As of 2007, the estimated population of India was over 1.1 billion, while that of Japan was 127 million. Which statement BEST explains a comparison of the population density of the two countries?
Explanation:
What’s the cartoon that your talking about though?
Answer:
In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court <u><em>ruled that bans on dangerous speech were constitutional.</em></u>
Explanation:
In the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. the United States, the court deemed the actions of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer as unconstitutional. It deemed them criminals for trying to obstruct the government's drafting of men for war and that it is an act against the security of the nation.
This case revolves around the claim that the obstruction of Schenck and Baer's free speech was unconstitutional and they have the right to express their opinions. But the court insisted that since the leaflets they distributed were against national security, the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.
Thus, the correct answer is the second option.
