This question is missing the options. I've found the complete question online. It is the following:
Genevieve makes sure that she walks by her boss's office several times a day and tries to greet and make eye contact with her. She is trying to increase her:
visibility
absorption
centrality
discretion
persuasion
Answer:
She is trying to increase her: visibility.
Explanation:
Genevieve, just like most employees, wishes to be seen, acknowledged, and appreciated. She is trying to become more visible to her boss, more noticeable, even if it is in smaller, seemingly trivial ways. Nowadays, employees understand the importance of being noticed and of building a personal brand. They understand the way they connect with others is crucial to opening doors and creating opportunities.
The Axis Alliancce is the answer
Answer:
a. differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors
Explanation:
Differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors is an approach that involves replacing a problem behavior with a positive behavior by reinforcing and stimulating a positive behavior that cannot be exhibited the same time with the problem behavior. Differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors works well especially in cases of people having autism spectrum disorder (ASD) where the individual engages in problem behaviors that inflict injury on the individual.
From the question above, the therapist uses the differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors approach, as he uses praise as a reinforcement to increase the frequency at which Zander chews gum or sticks out his tongue, as these behaviors cannot occur together with the behavior of biting of lips. Chewing of gum, sticking out of tongues are reinforced in order to replace the biting of lips with them.
Authenticating or Identifying Evidence, Rule 901 (a) ALL IN ALL. The proponent must provide evidence adequate to sustain a finding that the item is what the proponent asserts it is in order to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence.
<h3>What is Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence?</h3>
Authenticating or Identifying Evidence, Rule 901 (a) ALL IN ALL. The proponent must provide evidence adequate to sustain a finding that the item is what the proponent asserts it is in order to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence. The authenticity of the evidence is one need that must be met for it to be considered admissible by the court. A rule of evidence known as "authentication" stipulates that there must be adequate evidence to support a determination that the thing in question is what its proponent says.
The first step in authenticating a piece of evidence is to call a witness who can attest from personal experience that it is what the claimant says it is. As an illustration, in United States v. Evidence must be sufficiently demonstrated to establish its authenticity in order for it to be admitted into court. Only a prima facie showing is necessary, hence the burden of proof for authentication is relatively low.
To learn more about Rule 901 refer to:
brainly.com/question/24261690
#SPJ4
It was between Mexico and Texas
