Answer:
The statement which is the best argument against Social Darwinism is:
B. A good work ethic can eliminate a lot of the disadvantages of poverty.
Explanation:
Social Darwinism is a philosophy that incorporates notions taken from Darwinism, applying them to sciences such as sociology and economics. As we know, <u>Darwinism is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest". Therefore, Social Darwinism explains differences in status, wealth, and success by stating that those who have those things are better than those who do not. In other words, if someone is poor or unsuccessful, that means that person is not "evolved" enough.</u>
The problem with Social Darwinism is that is justifies discrimination and imperialism. It places the blame on those who are actually suffering the consequences of a broken and unfair system. With that in mind, we can easily eliminate options A and C, since they agree with Social Darwinism. Option D can also be eliminated because it merely states a fact that is true, but does not refute Social Darwinism.<u> Letter B is the best option. It argues that there is a way to eliminate many of the disadvantages, that is, it shows the problem with the system, refuting Social Darwinism.</u>
An autotelic activity is enjoyable for its own sake.
Because so much of what an autotelic person accomplishes is already satisfying, they have little desire for material possessions, amusement, comfort, power, or fame.
Such individuals rely less on external rewards that encourage others to continue with a life of routines since they experience flow at the job, in family life, when connecting with people, when eating, and even when they are alone and have nothing to do.
Because they are harder to control through external threats or rewards, they are more independent and autonomous. They are also more aware of everything going on around them since they are completely enmeshed in life's flow.
To learn more about autotelic refer to:
brainly.com/question/9563519
#SPJ4
Answer:
The argument uses deductive reasoning and logical evidence in the form of a historical example to support the claim.
Explanation:
The claim that a principality created by the people is easier to govern is a conclusion of deductive thinking, where the author has used evidence to substantiate that claim. These evidences must have been taken from historical facts, which prove that the conclusion is correct. In other words, we can say that to generate this claim, the author used an argument that uses deductive reasoning and logical evidence in the form of a historical example to support the claim.
Answer: The person has the right to remain silent and refuse to answer any questions.
Explanation:
The Miranda warning or rights is a statement that the police give to anyone who has been arrested in the United States. This warning has a format that is issued to every person at the time of the arrest.
The Miranda warning is given as follows:
1- You have the right to remain silent
2- Anything you say can be and will be used against you in court
3- You have the right to speak with a lawyer and have a lawyer present during the interrogation
4- If you cannot afford the services of a lawyer, the government assigns you one
5- Are you aware of all the rights that have been mentioned before?
Every person at the time of arrest has rights and they should not be violated. When the person is not aware of this, it can generate evidence against itself, even do the person is innocent. Everyone must know what they should and should not do when they are arrested.
The name of Miranda Warning arises as a result of a case happened to a person named Ernesto Arturo Miranda. This person was found guilty of crimes of kidnapping and armed robbery. These charges were adjudicated due to Ernesto's confession when he was interrogated by the police. This case became the historic the United States Supreme Court case known as the Miranda case against Arizona. From this moment it was dictated that every person at the time of being arrested must know what their rights are.
