The public feels, as never before, that it knows the President or a presidential candidate on a personal basis. ... The standard for a constitutional Presidency has remained the same. ... Perhaps the first and foremost element of a constitutional Presidency is eligibility.
Companies like Walmart that assert a "more for less" strategy are using value-based pricing.
What is value-based pricing?
- Value-based pricing is a method of setting prices that is mostly based on how much a consumer thinks a product or service is worth.
- Value pricing is which means that businesses set their prices in accordance with what consumers think a product is worth.
- Value-based pricing differs from "cost-plus" pricing, which computes prices after taking manufacturing costs into account.
- Companies that provide distinctive or highly desirable products or services are better positioned to benefit from the value pricing model than those that sell primarily commoditized goods.
- The value-based pricing theory primarily applies in marketplaces where owning a product improves a customer's self-image or enables unmatched life experiences.
To learn more about Value-based pricing refer to:
brainly.com/question/17438199
#SPJ4
Answer:
c. conservation.
Explanation:
Conservation: In psychology, the concept of "conservation" was proposed by one of the renowned psychologists named Jean Piaget and is described in the preoperational stage of the cognitive development theory at the age of four-five years yet it completely develops around seven-eleven years in the concrete operational stage.
The process of "conservation" is explained as the tendency of an individual to gain the capability of thinking logically that leads an individual to believe that a specific quantity will remain same irrespective of the container's adjustment with respect to the size or shape.
In the question above, the given statement signifies the concept of "conservation".
Answer:
letting the toy car roll down a ramp
Explanation:
correct me if im wrong
hope its help
Kant believed in something he called the <em>categorical imperative. </em>A categorical imperative is a particular moral position that holds in all possible situations - an unshakable moral law, in other words. For imperatives like "do not kill," this seems reasonable, but for others, such as "do not lie," it gets a little hairier.
Imagine a scenario where a murderer comes to your door and asks if you've see your friend around. Moments before, your friend came to you telling you about the murderer, asking if they could hide at your house. Kant would say you're obligated not to lie, so your options are to either shut the door on the murderer (not a great idea) or give away your friend's hiding place (an even worse idea). You can see how a little white lie wouldn't hurt, and would in fact <em>prevent harm from happening</em>. If you were a sworn Kantian, it might play out badly for everyone involved.
To answer your question in light of that, Kantian ethics hold that certain moral standards are universal and impose a duty on <em>all </em>humans. Do not lie. Period.
