Answer:
A). Subjects who were given misleading information after viewing the slides were far less accurate in their memories for the kind of sign present than were subjects who were given no such information.
Explanation:
As per the given example, option A displays the results or consequences of the given study which researched the 'impacts of various types of information on human memory'. The results would reveal that 'subjects who were offered misleading information were less correct in their memories in comparison to the subjects who were not proffered with any such information' as the wrong or misinformation leads to form inaccurate or false memories in their mind which implies that 'memories can not be reliable'. Therefore, <u>option A</u> is the correct answer.
<span>Each power plant gets a particular number of allowances, with each allowance allowing the company to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide.</span>
The correct answer is no.
Alisha was under no obligation to help Timmy, <em>there is no such thing like</em> <em>duty to rescue.</em> There is no legal requirement in the United States to help and rescue someone who is in danger. Even in extreme situation, when a person sees a person falling into a river for example, the witness of the situation is no obliged to assist with help.
There are some cases with some important exceptions: if the defendant created the peril he is obliged to come to the plaintiff's aid, if the defendant started to rescue the plaintiff, he must continue to do so, if the defendant is in a special relationship with the plaintiff ( teacher-student, worker-employer), he is under duty to rescue him.
Alisha was under no duty to inform Timmy's parents of the danger facing him <em>but she should have done it nevertheless.</em> She should at least have phoned them if she didn't have the time to stop by. She knew the boy well and she should have cared more. The need to help the boy should have come from her moral guidance and not as a sense of duty to be performed.
