I believe its C. Cross-sectional
that is not true because the president has final say in any matter that is to be announced public
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Argue a case for appointing judges and then argue a case for having them elected.
In the case of appointing judges, many experts agree on the idea that appointed is better because judges have to be neutral. They serve the Constitution, they do not serve any political party or particular interests.
Once appointed, the judges are going to ratify, so it is supposed that their integrity is double-checked.
In other cases, some arguments favor the election of judges, stating that people should be trusted to elect judges. Through this election, judges will be driven to serve the people who put their trust in them to impart justice.
If they are elected, some voices agree that judges should be elected for a determined period, so people could evaluate if they did a good during their tenure.
However, in both cases, some advantages and disadvantages have to be resolved by law experts and politicians in their respective states.
Answer:
The correct answer is - F
Explanation:
This is found in observations that primates such as velvet monkeys to use language for communication in the wild. It is found that chimps show the ability to teach and learn specific language words of humans but they never able to speak.
TPrimates can acquire the language to understand the language but can not learn or acquire it as fast as speaking children can acquire the language. Therefore, the given statement is false.
I believe the answer is: <span>recall; recognition
In a recall test, the participant would be exposed to many stimulus, told to wait a minute, and told to recall as much stimulus as possible.
In recognition test, the participant would be implicitly exposed to the stimulus, and would be tested whether they could recognized the same stimulus if presented in a different way.</span>
