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:
implementing a plan of explanation
Afterimages is known to be the illusion that best illustrates the opponent process.
<h3>What is the opponent process?</h3>
Note that The opponent-process theory is most useful for telling an attribute of Afterimages
This theory states that opposing retinal processes (red-green, yellow-blue, white-black) helps to bring about color vision.
Therefore, Afterimages is known to be the illusion that best illustrates the opponent process.
Learn more about opponent process from
brainly.com/question/26428681
#SPJ11
