Hello. You have not submitted the text to which this question refers. This makes it impossible for your question to be answered. However, I will try to help you in the best possible way.
It is only possible to answer this question by reading the two texts. Also, this is a personal question so first of all, you should reflect on what you think about the dangers that social media can offer to users. Do you think social media can influence you incorrectly? do you think social media can impose negative standards on society? Do you think that social media can promote exaggerated exposure? These are some concepts that you can reflect on to create your opinion about the dangers that social media can cause.
Then, you should read both texts and pay attention to how the authors approach these dangers and which author managed to present an argument that most closely resembles the opinion you have on this subject.
Therefore, you must answer this question by showing how you and this author present similar arguments and opinions.
Answer:
legislative advocacy -
Explanation:
legislative advocacy -
It is defined as discussions which are based on modification of any bill.
It is assurance given to particular set of groups about their rights by making discussion with policy maker and legislator. The simple way to legislative advocacy is to contact with policy maker involves in particular bill by requesting them to vote for specific bill.
They manipulated the length of time between seeing and recalling sets of 3-letter stimuli while preventing rehearsal.
Answer:
In the explanation section below, the summary of the given context is summarized.
Explanation:
Throughout the perspective of its fundamental principles, preconceptions or expectations about people as well as underlying conceptual context, the psychoanalyze theories, approaches as well as situational approach may be regarded to have been very diverse.
- Throughout the psychoanalyze theory, Freud's incredible achievement has been placed together in a tight social contemporary framework, which includes a severely prejudiced and almost physically oppressed community.
- The humanistic idea that still nowadays remains regarded as one of the most uplifting and development-assuring ideas that already have emerged from psychology seems to have been a lacking element of advancement.
When Jesus reached the famous well at Shechem and asked a Samaritan woman for a drink, she replied full of surprise: "Jews do not associate with Samaritans” (John 4:9). In the ancient world, relations between Jews and Samaritans were indeed strained. Josephus reports a number of unpleasant events: Samaritans harass Jewish pilgrims traveling through Samaria between Galilee and Judea, Samaritans scatter human bones in the Jerusalem sanctuary, and Jews in turn burn down Samaritan villages. The very notion of “the good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37) only makes sense in a context in which Samaritans were viewed with suspicion and hostility by Jews in and around Jerusalem.
It is difficult to know when the enmity first arose in history—or for that matter, when Jews and Samaritans started seeing themselves (and each other) as separate communities. For at least some Jews during the Second Temple period, 2Kgs 17:24-41 may have explained Samaritan identity: they were descendants of pagan tribes settled by the Assyrians in the former <span>northern kingdom </span>of Israel, the region where most Samaritans live even today. But texts like this may not actually get us any closer to understanding the Samaritans’ historical origins.
The Samaritans, for their part, did not accept any scriptural texts beyond the Pentateuch. Scholars have known for a long time about an ancient and distinctly Samaritan version of the Pentateuch—which has been an important source for textual criticism of the Bible for centuries. In fact, a major indication for a growing Samaritan self-awareness in antiquity was the insertion of "typically Samaritan" additions into this version of the Pentateuch, such as a Decalogue commandment to build an altar on Mount Gerizim, which Samaritans viewed as the sole “place of blessing” (see also Deut 11:29, Deut 27:12). They fiercely rejected Jerusalem—which is not mentioned by name in the Pentateuch—and all Jerusalem-related traditions and institutions such as kingship and messianic eschatology.
