Answer:
Explanation:
It is recess and the sun is shining! Stefanie and Latisha can hardly keep from running as their class walks in a line to the playground. The two girls have been friends since kindergarten. Both athletic and social, together they have been the leaders among their peers. They usually decide recess activities and other girls quickly follow; however, things seem to be changing in the fourth grade. Latisha is spending more time with another girl, Thanh, as they now play on the same soccer team together. They are even joining the boys in their soccer games on the fi eld. Stefanie tries to join in but the boys will not pass her the ball and she is left standing on the sidelines. She really does not like the boys. Stephanie tries to join the other girls from their class but their friendship “clubs” are already formed and she thinks that they are not willing to include new members. Stefanie goes home that night and cries to her mother. She tells her that everyone, including her teacher, is mean.
Let’s Discuss
• Are the feelings that Stefanie is articulating normal or typical? Why or why not?
• How might you explain Stefanie’s feelings about friendships?
• How might you explain Stefanie’s assessment of other people’s actions?
• How might you explain Stefanie’s feelings about gendered friendships?
Answer:
Explanation:
Answer:
B) Growing up means accepting oneself.
Explanation:
The narrorator is highlighting the differences between her and her brothers, showing how she is different from them. That makes me think that B would be the answer, as she is accepting her differences from her siblings. This is me kind of making an assumption, but if I were doing this quiz that is the answer I would choose.
Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
what is the setting pls tell
Answer:
All of them!
Explanation:
The outsiders book (In my sentiment) Is a book to assist individuals with understanding others lives. The socs have it nearly as terrible as the greasers. Individuals in the socs are misinterpreted in light of the fact that every one of them arent the equivalent. Also, obviously the greasers are misconceived in light of the fact that they are looked down on as "Poor people"
