Aristotle feels that way because he believed that M<span>ost of the creation could not be studied and therefore lay beyond human understanding.
He believed that some things are meant to be unknown by the limit of our intellectual capabilities and we should only focus on things that we could control with our current capabilities.</span>
Answer: Classic Conditioning
Explanation:
In Classical conditioning, the conditioned stimulus was previously a neutral stimulus that eventually becomes to trigger a conditioned responses after becoming associated with the unconditioned stimulus.
Here is an illustration of classic conditioning, the unconditioned stimulus (food) is presented repeatedly just after the presentation of the neutral stimulus (bell). After conditioning, the neutral stimulus alone produces a conditioned response (salivation), thus becoming a conditioned stimulus. Explanation, from this illustration, one salivates whenever it sees food but before the present the food, a bell is rung. Overtime just ringing the bell makes the person to start salivating.
Answer:
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Explanation: In 1922, Russia along with countries under its control formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR) better known as the Soviet Union (or the Soviets). It was a communist group and did not agree with western, capitalist countries or their way of ruling.
Answer: Vladimir Putin
Answer:
command economy. here's the definition of command economy:
"A command economy is an economic system where the government has control over the production and pricing of goods and services."
Answer: A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss aversion will provide additional motivation
.
Options:
A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss
aversion will provide additional motivation
B. designating a charity should be more effective because it avoids all potential for loss
C. it shouldn’t matter whether one designates a charity or anti-charity
D. self-interest biases generally keep people from choosing the anti-charity
Explanation:
The study of behavioral Economics shows that people are more driven by the loss of fear than the hope of gain. This is known as loss aversion. In commitment contracts where penalty money is promised to a charity or an anti-charity if the goal is not achieved, those who promise their money to an anti-charity tend to achieve their goals more. The same also applies when comparing this group and those who do not have to forego anything if they do not meet their target.
This is because giving to a charity will still seem beneficial while losing the money to an anti-charity will seem like a total loss.
