This question is missing the options. I've found them online. They are as follows:
Mr. Reed would be considered a/an _________ offender because he does have the funds necessary to hire an attorney on his own.
a. a problem
b. an indigent
c. a contract
d. an assigned
e. an at risk
Answer:
Mr. Reed would be considered a/an b. indigent offender because he does have the funds necessary to hire an attorney on his own.
Explanation:
An indigent can be defined as someone who does not have the means and resources to provide the basic necessities of life, such as food and clothing. Likewise, an indigent offender is someone who does not have sufficient income to afford an attorney. In such cases, the court appoints and pays for the lawyer to represent the offender. This is actually a quite common occurrence, sometimes reaching the number of 82% of court appointed lawyers for felony defendants.
Answer:
Ethical theories have rules/principles that are used to determine right or wrong in any given situation. In this situation will be used Utilitarian, Kant and Natural law theories.
Utilitarians: use to consider the greatest good for all, so is the case to consider if a homosexual relation is beneficial to all involved. Also society judgment should depend on if it had good or bad social consequences. For Kant’s ethics (which is basically based on reason not emotion) the actions are judged in terms of respects for others and should be based on honesty and good intentions. Finally, for Natural law ethics it would be analyzed from whether the practice is consistent with the human nature.
Machiavellian virtue this is a political virtue that responds to the appeal of the public world. More than a virtue, it is a virtuosity - it is the skill that, in Machiavelli's view, anyone who aspires to be a great political leader must have. Someone with the talent, creativity and willingness to respond to the call of his time and to rise to it.
They are similar theories, which resemble the form of morality and virtue and differ in the way one sees them.
Answer:
A control should have been included in the investigation
Explanation:
It is impossible for the student to interpret a correct conclusion about his experiment, without adding a control treatment where he can really compare the differences between the variables.
Control treatment is an element of research that receives all factors, except the variable being tested. The control serves to make comparisons with the other treatments, allowing to observe the exact difference between a system where the variable was tested and the system where it was not.
In the case of the question above, it would have been necessary for the student to have placed a cart on a ramp of normal height and without sandpaper. That way he could compare the speed between this cart and the carts on the other ramps, thus having a correct result.
Answer:
Jessica can prevail under the Equal Pay Act as her job is substantially equal to Eric's.
Explanation:
The Equal Pay Act demands both men and women in the same be paid equally for the same job. It does <em>not necessarily have to be identical</em> but <em>substantially similar. </em>
In this case both Jessica and Eric coach a basketball team and both of the teams are trained to compete at the state level. Since both Jessica and Eric are carrying out a substantially equal and similar job, Jessica can prevail under this Act.
