Answer – D (Banquet cannot make changes to the doors without
undue hardship)
To successfully defend against art's claim, banquet will have to
show that they cannot make changes to the doors without undue hardship. Under
the Americans with disabilities act, employers who do not accommodate
the needs of persons with disabilities must prove that doing so would cause
undue hardship.<span>
</span>
Answer:
The answer is - Einhorn decides not to steal according to the pre-conventional level where as Finkle decides not to steal according to the conventional level
Explanation:
Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is related to cognitive development and it states that there are three levels of moral thinking which we progress through that build on our cognitive development. It also proposes that there are reasoning behind moral choices.
There are three levels of moral development according to Lawrence Kohlberg. They are;
- The Pre-conventional Level- Children focus obeying external authority or higher authority figures such as parents or teachers because the Child's moral sense is yet to internalize with the society's conventions as regards what is right or wrong. Hence they focus on the consequences of their actions if they obey authority figures.
- The Conventional Level- In this level the child's moral sense is bounded by societal and personal relationships as they try to maintain positive relationships and societal order by accepting rules of authority figures.
- The Post-conventional Level -In this level people now believe that some laws are prejudiced and should be discarded.
In this scenario, Einhorn decides not to steal according to the pr conventional level because he is afraid of getting caught and punished. Finkle on the other hand decides not to steal because it i wrong and he wants to act in a way he would want others to act, this is the conventional level because he knows his right from wrong and is trying to maintain societal order by not doing what he would not want others to do.
Answer:
Test-retest reliability
Explanation:
Test-retest reliability has happened in statistical analysis. Test-retest reliability is of reliability. It is the external reliability. It is a statistical measurement tool to measure that the test is valid or not. It is about to conduct a test first time on a population and then again apply to the population. If the score of the first trial and the second trial are the same, the test will be valid. It indicates that the test is replicate and can be used more than one time at a specific period. The test-retest reliability indicates that the test has good validity. It is conducted two times T1 and T2 and the score will be the same. Linear correlation is used to measure the test-retest reliability of a test
Answer: Mythology in the ancient period served to explain individual natural phenomena, and it defines the eternal question of the afterlife.
Explanation:
It is in nature for man to understand the things that surround him. Due to the lack of scientific evidence and generally the underdevelopment of science, man has, from the earliest times, formed myths to explain particular natural phenomena. These beliefs were passed on from one generation to the next, thus maintaining continuity.
He defined specified natural disasters as the punishment of the gods for their mistakes and attributed them to the reaction of the gods. The most common natural phenomena, such as thunder, could not be explained by a man from an exact distance, which is why he defined them as divine. For fear of death, the man also used mythology. He set out specific principles and rules that made it desirable to live to facilitate an eternal, afterlife.
Answer:
My dear reader, the rule of law is not a respecter of person or group of persons. Every soul and institutions is equal before the law. Hence, no one is above the law. In any criminal trial, the onus of proving the guilt against an accused person arraigned before a court of law beyond reasonable doubt rest squarely on the prosecution unless, in some special cases when the prosecution closes its case having called witnesses to testify against an accused person.
