The answer is false. I just had this question and missed it.
The answer to the first unknown in the problem is the "EGO" while in the second unknown in the problem is referring to "face-to-face discussions with". In modern psychoanalyst differ from the traditional Freudian psychoanalysis in such a way that they focus on the EGO as a motivating force of behavior and they favor face-to-face discussions with their patients.
The correct answer is no.
Alisha was under no obligation to help Timmy, <em>there is no such thing like</em> <em>duty to rescue.</em> There is no legal requirement in the United States to help and rescue someone who is in danger. Even in extreme situation, when a person sees a person falling into a river for example, the witness of the situation is no obliged to assist with help.
There are some cases with some important exceptions: if the defendant created the peril he is obliged to come to the plaintiff's aid, if the defendant started to rescue the plaintiff, he must continue to do so, if the defendant is in a special relationship with the plaintiff ( teacher-student, worker-employer), he is under duty to rescue him.
Alisha was under no duty to inform Timmy's parents of the danger facing him <em>but she should have done it nevertheless.</em> She should at least have phoned them if she didn't have the time to stop by. She knew the boy well and she should have cared more. The need to help the boy should have come from her moral guidance and not as a sense of duty to be performed.
Answer:Weak,Inductive,Uncogent
Explanation:This tries to compare Sierra Nevada mountain range and the island of Jamaica are both popular tourist destinations.
The conclusion made by this statement is WEAK, INDUCTIVE AND UNCOGENT.
The information about the bringing of Ski equipment when traveling to Jamaica in February is not a strong, deductive and cogent conclusion as both areas are not exactly the same as stated by the write up.
A conclusion is said to be weak when it does not have strong evidence to back it up,it is said to be inductive if it is not fully supported by the premise and it is said to be Uncogent when the argument is not clear and believable.
I believe the answer to this is Impeachment. Hope this helps!
