Answer:
Explanation:
In this scenario while taking two psychology courses of cognition and learning and are giving midterm exams tomorrow. Once you finished studying for your cognition test, and are attempting to study for the learning exam. While you find it difficult to recall the material on learning; you are experiencing proactive interference. It refers to the interference which effect of previously learned materials on the acquisition and retrieval of newer materials. If we take an example in today's life it could be the difficulty in remembering a friend's new phone number after having previously learned the old number.
The correct answer would be option B, Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.
The above mentioned belief indicated the external locus of control.
Explanation:
The extent to which people think that they have or have not control over the outcomes of events in their lives. There are two types of locus of control:
- External Locus of Control
- Internal Locus of Control
In external locus of control, people believe that they don't have any control over the events happening in their lives and all such events are happening due to the luck, fate, circumstances, injustice, etc. On the contrary, people with internal locus of control believe that everything happening in their lives are due to their own selves.
So in the given question, option B gives us the best example of the external locus of control, in which it is said that Many of unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. So it means the people believe that bad things are happening due to their luck, which is an external factor and is out of their control.
Learn more about locus of control at:
brainly.com/question/1182564
#LearnWithBrainly
Answer:
here....
Explanation:
Korodegaga is a collection of nine villages scattered over a large area (2 hours walk between some of them) and forming one kebele in Dodota wereda in Oromia. ... Moreover, most people have access to a mobile phone (in addition to a public V-Sat phone in the kebele though only receiving calls).
I guess it is... hope it help you..
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.
I think the answer is C) closed/direct.<span> </span>