I believe the answer is: <span>reasonable suspicion
</span><span>Investigation under reasonable suspicion would give negative backlash if proven to be abused by the officers, but it still give them legal stand point to conduct a search on private properties.
Officers need to find things such as blood evidence, screams, or gun shots to conduct searches under reasonable suspicion.</span>
Answer with Explanation:
The evaluation of every matter requires a framework based on a useful ideas that are required for a better judgement for deriving a solution like if we want to resolve a mathematical problem, then we will use mathematical functions like +, -, *, etc so that we are able to solve the question because these are the ideas that are based on a useful ideas (Logic). Likewise when we want to assess whether the argument is good or not, we will require an ethical standard framework to evaluate the good in the argument.
So yes, I agree that ethics is an essential element of a good argument because it is the framework which decides which argument is good or not. These ethical values in a particular argument is a move from not good to good argument. Greater the ethical values in an argument the more is the argument good as per ethical principles.
It should be noted that 30-day period of unexcused absenteeism is acceptable before a person is formally disciplined.
<h3>What is Excessive absenteeism?</h3>
Excessive absenteeism serves as two or more occurrences of unexcused absence in a 30-day period .
This action usually result in disciplinary action and Eight occurrences of unexcused absence in a 12-month period could bring termination.
Learn more about absenteeism at;
https://brainly.in/question/1197092
Answer:
The correct answer is a. Humphreys used license plate numbers to target their homes and interview the men without disclosing the real subject of his study.
Explanation:
Laud Humphreys (1930-1988) was a sociologist who for his PhD dissertation wrote a study called <em>Tearoom Trade</em> (1968), where he studied the behavior of males who engaged in homosexual sex in public toilets. Humphreys made a series of discoveries, like finding out that most of the men who engaged in these practices were not openly or overtly homosexual, and even a majority of them (54%) were married. However, his research was widely criticized because of how he performed it. Humphreys acted out as a sort of look-out for the men in the toilets, but without disclosing his identity as a researcher. Moreover, <u>Humphreys followed the unwitting subjects of his study to their homes by </u><u>tracking their license plate numbers and interviewed them</u><u>, posing as a government health officer and hiding his true identity as a sociologist conducting research</u>. Lying to subjects and hiding from them that they're part of a study is frowned upon by the scientific community, so the research was widely controversial, and it's still brought up as an example of the ethics of social research.
