p o r n hu b . com . .. . .. . .
Hello. You did not enter the text to which this question refers. However, from the context of the question, we can see that you are referring to "Trifles" a play written by Susan Glaspell. In that case, I hope the answer below can help you.
Answer:
Because she wants to create a sense of mystery in readers and viewers of the play, leaving them anxious about the unfolding of the plot and curious about those elements that are not shown, but are commented on by the other characters, will be presented.
Explanation:
"Trifles" is a one-act theater piece that features an investigation into the murder of John Wright, inside the farm where he lived with his wife, Winnie, who is the main suspect of having committed the crime. All the neighbors in the area are involved in the investigation in some way and although they all comment on the crime, Wright's body, the house and the Wrights, none of these elements are presented. The author does this to intensify the suspense, cause doubts in readers and viewers and make them anxious and curious about the plot.
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
They are called cash grants given from the government to encourage certain commodities or to sell good for prices lower than the market prices. Thus the market price of a commodity is less than its factor cost.
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
